Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-npccv Total loading time: 0.348 Render date: 2022-10-03T15:57:55.332Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Campaign Perceptions of Electoral Closeness: Uncertainty, Fear and Over-Confidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2015

Abstract

In partnership with state Democratic parties and the Obama campaign, the authors surveyed staffers from nearly 200 electoral campaigns in 2012, asking about the expected vote share in their races. Political operatives’ perceptions of closeness can affect how they campaign and represent citizens, but their perceptions may be wildly inaccurate: campaigns may irrationally fear close contests or be unrealistically optimistic. Findings indicate that political operatives are more optimistic than fearful, and that incumbent and higher-office campaigns are more accurate at assessing their chances. While the public may be better served by politicians fearing defeat, campaigns are typically staffed by workers who are over-confident, which may limit the purported benefits of electoral competition.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 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.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Government, Harvard University (email: renos@gov.harvard.edu); Department of Political Science, Yale University (email: eitan.hersh@yale.edu). The authors thank Michael Young for his outstanding research assistance, and Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies and Center for the Study of American Politics for research support. They also thank Jim St. George and Matt Gillette at NGP-VAN; Ethan Roeder and Ben Fuller at Obama for America; and Ann Fishman at the Association of State Democratic Party Chairs; and Drew Linzer for sharing his data on presidential polls. They are grateful to John Bullock, Daniel Butler, David Broockman, and Danny Hayes for helpful comments. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS. Online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000435.

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John H. 1993. Rational Choice and Turnout. American Journal of Political Science 37 (1):246278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Brady, David, and Fiorina, Morris. 1992. The Vanishing Marginals and Electoral Responsiveness. British Journal of Political Science 92 (1):2138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Snyder, James M. Jr 2002. The Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offices, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal 1 (3):315338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Matthew A., Enos, Ryan D., and Hill, Seth J.. 2009. Candidate Faces and Election Outcomes: Is the Face–Vote Correlation Caused by Candidate Selection? Quarterly Journal of Political Science 4:229249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen et al. 2012. A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics. Perspectives on Politics 10 (3):571597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Clifford E. 1982. A False Consensus Bias in 1980 Presidential Preferences. Journal of Social Psychology 118 (1):137138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunell, Thomas. 2008. Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections are Bad for America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brunell, Thomas L., and Buchler, Justin. 2009. Ideological Representation and Competitive Congressional Elections. Electoral Studies 28:448457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchler, Justin. 2005. Competition, Representation, and Redistricting. Journal of Theoretical Politics 17 (4):431463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Nickerson, David W.. 2011. Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6 (1):5583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Shotts, Kenneth W.. 2007. When Do Elections Encourage Ideological Rigidity? American Political Science Review 101 (2):273288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Duffy, John, and Tavits, Margit. 2008. Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model. American Journal of Political Science 52 (3):603618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enos, Ryan D., and Fowler, Anthony. 2014. Pivotality and Turnout: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Aftermath of a Tied Election. Political Science Research and Methods 2 (2):309319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enos, Ryan D., and Hersh, Eitan D.. 2015. Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign as a Principal–Agent Problem. American Political Science Review 109 (2):252278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2000. Equilibria in Campaign Spending Games: Theory and Data. American Political Science Review 94 (3):595609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1977. U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration. American Political Science Review 71 (3):883917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., and Noll, Roger G.. 1978. Uncertainty and the Formal Theory of Political Campaigns. American Political Science Review 72 (2):492505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It. American Political Science Review 71 (1):177181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraga, Bernard, and Hersh, Eitan. 2010. Voting Costs and Voter Turnout in Competitive Elections. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5 (4):339356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galasso, Vincenzo, and Nannicini, Tommaso. 2011. Competing on Good Politicians. American Political Science Review 105 (1):7999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geer, John G. 1996. From Tea Leaves to Opinion Polls: A Theory of Democratic Leadership. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Geys, Benny. 2006. Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-Level Research. Electoral Studies 25 (4):637663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, James G., Kaufmann, Karen M., and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2007. Battleground States versus Blackout States: The Behavioral Implications of Modern Presidential Campaigns. Journal of Politics 69 (3):786797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granberg, Donald, and Brent, Edward. 1983. When Prophecy Bends: The Preference–Expectation Link in US Presidential Elections, 1952–1980. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (3):477491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaney, Michael T., Masket, Seth E., Miller, Joanne M., and Strolovitch, Dara Z.. 2012. Polarized Networks: The Organizational Affiliations of National Party Convention Delegates. American Behavioral Scientist 56 (12):16541676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hersh, Eitan D. 2015. Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent. 1992. Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites. Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (4):419441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47 (2):263292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Jennifer S., and Keltner, Dacher. 2001. Fear, Anger, and Risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (1):140159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, Thomas E. 1978. Unsafe at Any Margin. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals. Polity 6 (3):295317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miler, Kristina, C. 2009. The Limitations of Heuristics for Political Elites. Political Psychology 30 (6):863894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57 (1):4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1989. The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure. Pp. 267329, in Can the Government Govern? edited by John Chubb and Paul Peterson. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Persily, Nathaniel. 2002. In Defense of Foxes Guarding Henhouses: The Case for Judicial Acquiescence to Incumbent-Protecting Gerrymanders. Harvard Law Review 116 (2):649683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyna, Valerie F., Nelson, Wendy L., Han, Paul K., and Dieckmann, Nathan F.. 2009. How Numeracy Influences Risk Comprehension and Medical Decision Making. Psychological Bulletin 135 (6):943973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, Lee, Greene, David, and House, Pamela. 1977. The ‘False Consensus Effect’: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13 (3):279301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition. American Political Science Review 66 (2):558568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sides, John, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2013. The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan C. 1999. Political Parties and Democracy. Annual Review of Political Science 2:243267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Walter J., and Rapoport, Ronald B.. 1994. Candidate Perception among Nomination Activists: A New Look at the Moderation Hypothesis. Journal of Politics 56 (4):10341052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Enos and Hersh supplementary material

Appendix

Download Enos and Hersh supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 227 KB
6
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.

Campaign Perceptions of Electoral Closeness: Uncertainty, Fear and Over-Confidence
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.

Campaign Perceptions of Electoral Closeness: Uncertainty, Fear and Over-Confidence
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.

Campaign Perceptions of Electoral Closeness: Uncertainty, Fear and Over-Confidence
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? *