Political campaign

A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making progress within a specific group.

The points summarize the main ideas of the campaign and are repeated frequently in order to create a lasting impression with the voters.

In many elections, the opposition party will try to get the candidate "off message" by bringing up policy or personal questions that are not related to the talking points.

According to a 2024 study, political practitioners in the United States poorly predict what kind of messaging is persuasive to the public.

They work with the marketing manager to create, execute and monitor the performance of campaigns and provide all the resources required to meet sales targets.

Such volunteers and interns may take part in activities such as canvassing door-to-door and making phone calls on behalf of the campaigns.

Second, past election results, data from registered voter lists, and survey research make it possible to determine which people fall into each of these three groups.

In the book Campaigns and Elections by author John Sides, it says, "For those that do get attention, media coverage often emphasizes what is new, dramatic, or scandalous.

Campaigns often prioritize spending in contested regions and increase their paid media expenses as an election approaches.

In a study of Norwegian election campaigns, politicians reported they used social media for marketing and for dialogue with voters.

In the book Campaigns and Elections author John sides also speaks upon this on page 235 and says, "Online communities can still promote involvement in campaigns: large experiments on Facebook found that users who saw that their Facebook friends had reported voting were themselves a bit more likely to turn out to vote.

But there is also evidence that offering token public support for a cause on Facebook or Twitter may make one less likely to be involved in offline campaign activities" (Sides 2018).

Now, online election campaign information can be shared in a rich information format through campaign landing pages, integrating Google's rich snippets, structured data,[18] social media open graphs, and husting support file formats for YouTube like .sbv, .srt, and .vtt.

Marcus Giavanni used advanced algorithms, artificial intelligence, and voice indexing predictions to box in campaigns.

By metonymy, the term may now refer to any event, such as debates or speeches, during an election campaign where one or more of the representative candidates are present.

A 2018 study in the American Political Science Review found that campaigns have "an average effect of zero in general elections".

Second, when campaigns contact voters long before election day and measure effects immediately — although this early persuasion decays.

[33] A large body of political science research emphasizes how "fundamentals" – the state of the economy, whether the country is at war, how long the president's party has held the office, and which candidate is more ideologically moderate – predict presidential election outcomes.

[42] A consensus in the political science literature holds that national conventions usually have a measurable effect on presidential elections that is relatively resistant to decay.

One prominent theory holds that the outcome of presidential primaries is largely determined by the preferences of party elites.

Their strategic choices involve every facet of a campaign: whether to run in the first place, what issues to emphasize, what specific messages or themes to discuss, which kinds of media to use, and which citizens to target."

"[59] The authors of the study argue that it would be more effective for campaigns to go to the pockets of the country where wealthy donors are (for fundraising) and hold rallies in the populous states both to attract national press and raise funds.

[59] A 2005 study found that campaign visits had no statistically significant effect, after controlling for other factors, on voter turnout in the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections.

[60] On the other hand, a 2017 paper of the 1948 presidential election provides "strong evidence that candidate visits can influence electoral returns".

The Obama 2008 campaign's extensive use of field offices has been credited as crucial to winning in the states of Indiana and North Carolina.

[63] A 2024 study found "that campaign offices help candidates in small but meaningful ways, delivering modest but quantifiable increases in candidate vote share in the areas where they open... Field offices can increase candidate vote share, but their value differs across parties: Democrats benefit more in battleground states and populous areas, while Republicans’ largely rural base of support in recent years provides challenges for maximizing the benefits of in-person organizing.

[68] Political science research generally finds negative advertisement (which has increased over time)[69] to be ineffective both at reducing the support and turnout for the opponent.

[70] A 2021 study in the American Political Science Review found that television campaign ads do affect election outcomes, in particular in down-ballot races.

[33] According to political scientists Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar, negative ads do succeed at driving down overall turnout though.

Through 1904, only eight major presidential candidates did so (William Henry Harrison in 1840, Winfield Scott in 1852, Stephen A. Douglas in 1860, Horatio Seymour in 1868, Horace Greeley in 1872, James A. Garfield in 1880, James G. Blaine in 1884, William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and 1900, and Alton B. Parker in 1904), whereas every major presidential candidate since then has done so, with the sole exception of Calvin Coolidge in 1924.