Campaigns Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This example Campaigns Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

A campaign is an effort on the part of a candidate or organized group to convince a segment of the population to reach a particular decision. Said differently, campaigns reflect competition over ideas. The goal of any political campaign is for a candidate to be elected so that candidate can advance specific policy goals or political ideals. In a democratic system, candidates interested in attaining political office find it necessary to campaign in order to appeal to their respective constituencies in the period preceding an election. In a presidential, congressional, statewide, or local campaign, for instance, that effort typically involves convincing registered or likely voters to support one party’s political candidate over the alternative. Ultimately, those candidates who are elected are often said to have run an effective campaign, while those who lose are viewed as running an ineffective or less successful campaign.

In nearly all cases, the process is much more complicated than this simple dichotomy would suggest, but this can be a useful starting place for thinking about the campaigning process.

Although all campaigns for elective office are unique or different, there are certain similarities in political campaigns regardless of which office a candidate is trying to attain. In many respects, the most important feature of a campaign is finding effective and innovative ways of increasing one’s name recognition with likely or potential voters. This can involve meeting with small groups of voters face-to-face; giving speeches to larger crowds; sending out mailers listing one’s qualifications for office; and advertising on billboards, radio, or television. While some strategists might claim that any name recognition is a good thing, the most effective campaigns are designed specifically to elicit a favorable response among voters regarding the candidate. Essentially, the candidate tries to generate a positive “brand” name that will be remembered favorably by the voters when they go to their polling place on election day. In this respect, campaigning is not unlike creating a favorable image for a popular laundry detergent or brand of shampoo that shoppers will want to purchase.

Another essential aspect of a successful campaign is the ability to raise money. Creating a favorable brand name is not an inexpensive endeavor. It is costly both in terms of time and money. As such, candidates need to raise substantial sums of money in order to wage an effective campaign for any political office. Not surprisingly, the higher the stakes, the greater the amount of money needed to win an election. Presidential candidates, for instance, often find it necessary to raise enormous sums of money during the primary stage of the campaign and are still not assured the nomination for office. Congressional candidates, in contrast, spend millions of dollars in attempts to be reelected to either the House or Senate. Sending out mailings, hiring operatives to assist with campaign efforts, and advertising on both radio and television are very expensive, and require candidates for political office to constantly raise money during their campaigns.

A third important feature of a successful political campaign involves crafting a message that will resonate with the voters. Candidates running for political office against an incumbent (one who already holds political office) have to convince voters both why the incumbent should not be reelected and why the challenger represents a more viable alternative. As such, a carefully constructed message targeted to a specific subset of voters who will help the candidate win is crucial. The message a candidate employs can vary based on whether it is a statewide or national race, the economic nature of the times, or which party currently is in power in government. During the 2008 presidential campaign, for instance, Democratic candidate Barack Obama campaigned on a message or theme of change. On election day, his message of change resonated with nearly 53 percent of the American voters who were tired of eight years of control by the Bush administration. In a similar fashion, candidates for Congress or statewide legislators can run on a similar message of change. The classic notion of “throwing the bums out” is often invoked in legislative campaigns to signify that the incumbents have lost touch with the voters and should be replaced with a new face—often one that represents change from the status quo.

While all of the above factors—name recognition, money, and a message that resonates with the voters—are necessary to win an election, they are not sufficient. In nearly all cases, the success of a candidate’s campaign is also contingent upon the ability of staff, volunteers, and party activists to motivate people to turn out to vote on election day. Even candidates with a well-recognized name, lots of money, and a strong message are not guaranteed victory unless their supporters are encouraged to show up and vote. This is why voter registration efforts and get-out-the-vote drives are important components to a candidate’s electoral success. Clearly, a candidate can do only so much in terms of motivating voters to participate in the election. Beyond that, it takes a well-organized and highly structured campaign staff as well as volunteers to encourage people to go to the polls. Since both party’s candidates seek to maximize turnout, it is ultimately the candidate whose strategies and tactics are more effective who will be the victor at the end of the day.

Presidential Campaigns

In many respects, the presidential campaign has become the focal point of elections in the United States. Every four years, Americans focus their attention on the pomp and circumstance associated with the presidential campaign. There is probably no equivalent political event that generates as much attention and interest in this country and around the world. Candidates vying for the highest elective office in the land often are required to start their campaign relatively early to have a chance of earning the nomination during the primary stage of the campaign. In recent years, it has almost become the case that as soon as one presidential campaign ends, the next one begins. If a candidate is to have a chance at raising the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to wage a successful campaign, securing the delegates necessary to capture the nomination, and increasing one’s name recognition on a national level, it is not surprising that candidates need to begin campaigning as early as possible—in most cases, several years in advance.

Presidential campaigns occur in two stages. The first stage involves securing the party’s nomination for president during the primary stage of the election, and the second stage pits both parties’ nominees against one another in the general election. During the primary stage of the campaign, those starting early often have an advantage in terms of enhancing their name recognition, raising money, and securing commitments among delegates at the presidential conventions. It is at this stage of the process that candidates begin to craft a message for their campaign that will hopefully earn them the nomination. Although a frontrunner may emerge early on, there are often a number of potentially viable candidates seeking to earn the nomination during the primary campaign. Unlike the general election, the nomination stage is actually a series of elections. Thus, momentum plays a part in the primary process—winning a number of early contests can help propel a candidate to the nomination. As a result of limited resources, time, and other constraints, a gradual winnowing process occurs the longer the primary campaign continues. Ultimately, the slate of candidates is reduced to two or three after the initial caucuses and primaries occur. With additional primaries and caucuses held on various days, eventually only one candidate from each party is left, and that candidate ends up earning the most delegates and the respective party’s nomination.

Once the nomination for each candidate is secured at the party’s national convention, the general election campaign begins. This usually takes place around early September, right after Labor Day. This is the stage of the process when each party’s presidential candidate attempts to “seal the deal” with the American voters. This task is complicated by the fact that many voters have already made up their minds about who they intend to vote for well before the general election campaign begins. Some evidence suggests that nearly two-thirds of the American voters have already decided whom they will vote for before the final two months of the general election campaign. As such, both party’s candidates use whatever opportunities are available to reach out to undecided voters or weak “leaners” who might be convinced to vote for the opposing party’s candidate. It is during this stage of the campaign process that presidential candidates begin releasing television advertisements in, and traveling to, the competitive or battleground states in an attempt to secure a majority of electoral votes to eventually win the presidency.

The media plays an important role during both stages of the presidential campaign, as they are the main audience for much of what the candidates do when running for the presidency. Since media outlets want to attract as many readers or viewers as possible, they tend to focus on the “horserace” aspect of the presidential campaign. In other words, they focus much of their attention on which presidential candidate is currently in the lead, what presidential polls look like on a day-to-day basis, and what issues emphasized by the candidates seem to be resonating the most with likely or potential voters. Given the enormous costs of political advertising, presidential candidates value as much free media time as possible. If their actions are being covered by the media on a daily basis, that is less money that the candidates have to spend themselves in order to get their names out or to advertise their positions to voters. Nearly all presidential candidates travel with an entourage of press correspondents so they will be there when breaking news happens on the campaign trail. Despite the fact that their messages are being filtered through the media, candidates still value the access granted to them by various media outlets.

The presidential campaign has changed dramatically since the early days of the American republic. During much of the nineteenth century, presidential campaigns were carried out primarily by the party organizations. Presidential candidates were often said to wage what was known as a front-porch campaign—they would sit on their front porches throughout the fall greeting anyone who would come by to talk with them. However, they rarely if ever campaigned themselves. President Theodore Roosevelt was among the first to change this tradition as he traveled around the country by train during the 1904 presidential campaign. Several years later, Franklin Roosevelt was the first presidential candidate to appear in person when the Democratic Party nominated him at their convention in 1932. Since that time, the presidential campaign has steadily evolved into more of a candidate-centered system that is more familiar in the modern age. As such, candidates are largely responsible for selecting their own campaign staffs, paid consultants, and advisers with less support from the political party organizations than was the case during the nineteenth century.

Congressional, State, And Local Campaigns

Not surprisingly, congressional, state, and local campaigns receive far less attention and coverage than presidential campaigns. With literally hundreds of races at these lower levels, it is difficult for any one race in particular to generate as much attention as the presidential campaign. Every four years, and wherever possible, congressional or statewide candidates seek to ride the coattails of the presidential candidates during the election campaign. For instance, candidates for congressional or statewide offices try to appear with their respective party’s presidential candidates as much as they can during campaign visits to their district or state. Not only does this generate additional attention for their own campaigns, but it also offers a form of credible endorsement given that the presidential candidates are willing to appear on the same stage as the candidates running in these more localized races. Any type of “free” media coverage in this context is a good thing for statewide or congressional candidates since it reinforces the notion that they are both well-connected and important enough for the party’s presidential nominee to spend time visiting with supporters in the local constituencies. These types of candidates can also benefit from the increase in turnout during presidential election years since voters tend to go to the polls in greater numbers every four years.

During off-year or midterm elections, congressional or statewide candidates have a more difficult time generating as much media attention as might occur during a presidential campaign. However, this is probably more reflective of the candidate-centered electoral system in the United States. As noted earlier for presidential campaigns, candidates for congressional, statewide, or local races often run individually due to the candidate-centered nature of U.S. campaigns. Political parties can offer valuable services, especially in terms of voter education campaigns and get-out-the-vote efforts, but the role of parties in these types of races is far more decentralized than it used to be. Although candidates for congressional or statewide offices run under one of the two party labels, they often formulate their own campaign messages and strategies and are not unified under one broad party platform. As such, congressional candidates may run as Democrats that are both moderate and more liberal just as Republican candidates may run who are both centrist and more conservative on the ideological spectrum.

Do Campaigns Matter?

One question that repeatedly arises in the context of research on presidential elections is whether or not campaigns actually matter in terms of the overall election outcome. This is an important question that has been widely debated in the context of electoral politics in recent decades. To the casual observer, this question has a simple answer—of course campaigns matter. After all, why would politicians go to all the trouble of raising money, scheduling campaign visits, and debating their opponents if these activities had little or no impact on the outcome of the election? This is certainly a fair question. Time and resources are certainly scarce commodities for any candidate running for political office, and candidates do not want to waste them if they suspect they are not being allocated efficiently. Yet for all the logic underlying this inquiry, political scientists remain somewhat skeptical about whether campaigns matter for a variety of different reasons.

The main reason for this skepticism is the evidence from various forecasting models of presidential elections. Every four years, political scientists offer predictions about which party’s presidential candidate will win the upcoming election through the use of a variety of forecasting models. While some of the models are relatively complex in terms of the number of explanatory variables, others are fairly simple and predictions are based on factors such as the current state of the economy and the overall approval level of the incumbent administration. As is often the case, these relatively straightforward models offer an accurate prediction of the election outcome to within one or two percentage points. Since these parsimonious models can often predict the outcome of the election without accounting for any specific campaign effects, the natural question that arises is how important can campaigns be in light of this highly suggestive evidence? Furthermore, there is considerable survey evidence suggesting that a large proportion of voters make up their minds about whom to vote for months before the election occurs, which casts additional doubt on the overall effectiveness of campaigns.

Although some scholars discount the importance of campaigns in light of the above findings, many others suggest that, in most cases, the effects of campaigns may simply be muted. For instance, it may be the case that campaigns matter, but that the effects of competing campaigns tend to cancel each other out over the course of the months preceding the election. Others suggest that campaigns matter, but the effects are felt only at the margins in close, competitive elections when the number of votes between the two candidates is relatively small. Still others believe that campaigns are very effective at helping undecided voters make up their minds, but that they have little effect on the early deciders or partisan leaners who rely almost exclusively on party affiliation as a cue for whom to vote for in the upcoming election. Regardless of the scholarly evidence, it would likely be difficult to find candidates willing to forgo their campaign efforts on the off chance that the efforts might actually make a difference in terms of predicting who would go on to win the election.

Bibliography:

Campbell, James E. The American Campaign: U.S. Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote, 2nd ed. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2008.
“Forecasting the Presidential Vote in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (May 1992): 386–407.
Gomez, Brad T., and J. Matthew Wilson. “Causal Attribution and Economic Voting in American Congressional Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (September 2003): 271–282.
Herrnson, Paul S. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008.
Holbrook,Thomas M. “Campaigns, National Conditions, and U.S. Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (November 1994): 973–998.
Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1996. Jacobson, Gary C. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 7th ed. New York: Longman, 2009.
“Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–86.” American Political Science Review 83 (1989): 773–793.
Kolodny, Robin. Pursuing Majorities: Congressional Campaign Committees in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Tom W. Rice. “Forecasting Presidential Elections: A Comparison of Naïve Models.” Political Behavior 6, no. 1 (1984): 9–21.
Sellers, Patrick J. “Strategy and Background in Congressional Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 92 (1998): 159–171.
Sigelman, Lee, and Emmett H. Buell Jr. “You Take the High Road and I’ll Take the Low Road? The Interplay of Attack Strategies and Tactics in Presidential Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 65 (May 2003): 518–531.
Wlezien, Christopher, and Robert S. Erikson. “The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 64 (November 2002): 969–993.