Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-54vk6 Total loading time: 0.313 Render date: 2022-08-17T01:26:36.164Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign as a Principal-Agent Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

RYAN D. ENOS*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
EITAN D. HERSH*
Affiliation:
Yale University
*
Ryan D. Enos is Assistant Professor of Government, Harvard University, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 (renos@gov.harvard.edu).
Eitan D. Hersh is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale University, 77 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06520 (eitan.hersh@yale.edu).

Abstract

As a key element of their strategy, recent Presidential campaigns have recruited thousands of workers to engage in direct voter contact. We conceive of this strategy as a principal-agent problem. Workers engaged in direct contact are intermediaries between candidates and voters, but they may be ill-suited to convey messages to general-election audiences. By analyzing a survey of workers fielded in partnership with the 2012 Obama campaign, we show that in the context of the campaign widely considered most adept at direct contact, individuals who were interacting with swing voters on the campaign’s behalf were demographically unrepresentative, ideologically extreme, cared about atypical issues, and misunderstood the voters’ priorities. We find little evidence that the campaign was able to use strategies of agent control to mitigate its principal-agent problem. We question whether individuals typically willing to be volunteer surrogates are productive agents for a strategic campaign.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2012 Obama Campaign Legacy Report . 2013. Technical report Obama for America.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Hersh, Eitan. 2012. “Validation: What Survey Misreporting Reveal about Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate.” Political Analysis 20 (4): 437–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart III, Charles. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 136–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., Hopkins, Daniel J., and Rogers, Todd. 2013. “Unresponsive and Unpersuaded: The Unintented Consequences of Voter Persuasion Efforts.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedolla, Lisa García, and Michelson, Melissa R.. 2012. Mobilizing Inclusion: Transforming the Electorate through Get-Out-the-Vote Campaigns. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benabou, Roland, and Tirole, Jean. 2006. “Incentives and Prosocial Behavior.” American Economic Review 96 (5): 1652–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., de Benedictis-Kessner, Justin, Goldberg, Megan, and Margolis, Michele F.. 2014. “Implicit Cue-Taking in Elections.” American Political Science Association, Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2013. “Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science. 57 (2): 294311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Ray, and Hawkes, Caroline. 1982. “Judging Politicians by their Faces.” Political Studies 30 (1): 95101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, Jerry M., Messian, Nicole, Patel, Shebani, del Prado, Alicia, and Anderson, Carmen. 2004. “What a Coincidence! The Effects of Incidental Similarity on Compliance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (1): 3543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2009. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. 1982. “Projection and the Perception of Candidates’ Issue Positions.” The Western Political Quarterly, pp. 228–44.Google Scholar
Darley, John M., and Cooper, Joel. 1972. “The “Clean for Gene” Phenomenon: The Effect of Students’ Appearance on Political Campaigning.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2 (1): 2433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Kifer, Martin J., and Parkin, Michael. 2009. “Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 103 (3): 343–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 653–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, Andra Nicole. 2005. Community, Coordination, and Context: A Black Politics Perspective on Voter Mobilization. Ph.D. dissertation. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2008. Get Out The Vote. 2nd ed. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 2004. “Downs and Two-Party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 2546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Growth and Opportunity Project . 2013. Technical report. Republican National Committee.Google Scholar
Hersh, Eitan. 2012. “Primary Voters Versus Caucus Goers and the Peripheral Motivations of Political Participation.” Political Behavior 34 (4): 689718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hersh, Eitan D. 2015. Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hersh, Eitan, and Schaffner, Brian. 2012. “Targeted Campaign Appeals and the Value of Ambiguity.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 520–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Shields, Todd G.. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel, Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth. 2007. “Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference.” Political Analysis 15 (2): 199236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Issenberg, Sasha. 2012. The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. New York: Crown Publishing.Google Scholar
Keeter, Scott, Funk, Cary, and Kennedy, Courtney. October 5–7, 2005. “Deaniacs and Democrats: Howard Dean’s Campaign Activists.” State of the Parties Conference, Akron, OH. Unpublished conference paper.Google Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2008. “Do Televised Presidential Ads Increase Voter Turnout? Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 245–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., Green, John C., Herrera, Richard, and Cooperman, Rosalyn. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Politics.” American Political Science Review 104 (2): 324–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, Jan E. 2001. Strength in Numbers?: The Political Mobilization of Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2009. “Learning and Opinion Change, not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 821–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S., and Lawson, Chappell. 2011. “Looking the Part: Television Leads Less Informed Citizes to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 574–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linardi, Sera, and McConnell, Margaret A.. 2011. “No Excuses for Good Behavior: Volunteering and the Social Environment.” Journal of Public Economics 95: 445–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E.. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” The American Political Science Review 73 (4): 1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masket, Seth E. 2009. “Did Obama’s Ground Game Matter? The Influence of Local Field Offices During the 2008 Presidential Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (5): 1023–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (2): 243–77.Google Scholar
McKenna, Elizabeth, and Han, Hahrie. 2013. Groundbreakers: How Obama’s 2.2 Million Volunteers Transformed Field Campaigns in America. U.C. Berkeley. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Michelson, Melissa R. 2003. “Getting out the Latino Vote: How Door-to-door Canvassing Influences Voter Turnout in Rural Central California.” Political Behavior 25 (3): 247–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, Melissa R. 2006. “Mobilizing the Latino Youth Vote: Some Experimental Results*.” Social Science Quarterly 87 (5): 1188–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middleton, Joel A., and Green, Donald P.. 2008. “Do Community-Based Voter Mobilization Campaigns Work Even in Battleground States? Evaluating the Effectiveness of MoveOn’s 2004 Outreach Campaign.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3: 6382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Gary J. 2005. “The Political Evolution of Principal-Agent Models.” Annual Review of Political Science 8: 203–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munson, Ziad W. 2008. The Making of Pro-Life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2007. “Quality is Job One: Professional and Volunteer Voter Mobilization Calls.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 269–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David, and Rogers, Todd. 2014. “Political Campaigns and Big Data.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (2): 5174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. 2012. Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Owen, Guillermo, and Grofman, Bernard. 2006. “Two-Stage Electoral Competition in Two-Party Contests: Persistent Divergence of Party Positions.” Social Choice and Welfare 26 (3): 547–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1995. “Information Shortcuts and the Reasoning Voter.” In Information, Participation and Choice: An Economic Theory of Democracy in Perspective, ed. Groffman, Bernard. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1735.Google Scholar
Rogers, Todd, Fox, Craig R., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2012. Rethinking Why People Vote: Voting as Dynamic Social Expression. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rule, Nicholas O., and Ambady, Nalini. 2010. “Democrats and Republicans can be Differentiated from their Faces.” PLoS One 5 (1): e8733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samochowiec, Jakub, Wänke, Michaela, and Fiedler, Klaus. 2010. “Political Ideology at Face Value.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 1 (3): 206–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoeni, Robert F., Stafford, Frank, Mcgonagle, Katherine A., and Andreski, Patricia. 2013. “Response Rates in National Panel Surveys.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 645 (1): 6087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, Daron, de la Garza, Rodolfo O, and Lee, Jongho. 2000. “Examining Latino Turnout in 1996: A Three-state, Validated Survey Approach.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 338–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sides, John. 2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 407–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sides, John, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2013. The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. The Social Citizen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy, McConnell, Margaret, and Michelson, Melissa R.. 2013. “Local Canvassing: The Efficacy of Grassroots Voter Mobilization.” Political Communications 30 (1): 4257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Walter J., and Abramowitz, Alan I.. 1980. “Winning May Not be Everything, But It’s More Than We Thought: Presidential Party Activists in 1980.” American Political Science Review 77 (4): 945–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2009. “The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 103 (01): 8398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Voter Contact Summary . 2012. Technical report, Romney for President.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1998. “Monica Lewinsky’s Contribution to Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 31 (2): 182–9.Google Scholar
45
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign as a Principal-Agent Problem
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign as a Principal-Agent Problem
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign as a Principal-Agent Problem
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *