Surrogate-in-Chief: Did Bill Clinton’s Campaign Visits Help (or Hurt) Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Christopher J. Devine; Aaron C. Weinschenk

doi:10.1515/for-2020-2002

Artikel

Surrogate-in-Chief: Did Bill Clinton’s Campaign Visits Help (or Hurt) Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Christopher J. Devine und Aaron C. Weinschenk

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 29. September 2020

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet

Aus der Zeitschrift The Forum Band 18 Heft 2

Abstract

In this article, we examine the role that campaign visits by spouses and surrogates play in modern presidential campaigns. Specifically, we analyze the strategy and effectiveness of Bill Clinton’s campaign visits in 2016. Given the former president’s widespread name recognition and reputation as a legendary campaigner, we argue that he represents an ideal test case for determining whether the spouse of a presidential or vice presidential candidate can influence vote choice, via campaign visits. Our analysis indicates that Bill Clinton was, in fact, very active on the campaign trail in 2016 – making nearly as many visits as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. However, Bill Clinton mostly followed in Hillary Clinton’s footsteps on the campaign trail, giving him little opportunity to win over voters that she could not reach. His campaign visits also had no discernible effect on county-level voting, generally, in the 10 states to which he traveled. Yet, when we examine the effect of Clinton’s visits within states, we find that he had a positive and statistically significant effect on Democratic vote share in the battleground state of Florida. He had no such effect in the two states to which he traveled most often, however (North Carolina and Ohio). Overall, we find very limited evidence that campaign surrogates – and candidate spouses, specifically – can influence vote choice via their campaign visits. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research on the role of campaign surrogates, and their relevance to the 2020 presidential campaign.

Keywords: presidential campaigns; campaign visits; vote choice; elections; Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton

Corresponding author: Christopher J. Devine, Department of Political Science, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH, 45469-1425, USA, E-mail: cdevine1@udayton.edu

References

Althaus, S. L., P. F. Nardulli, and D. R. Shaw. 2002. “Candidate Appearances in Presidential Elections, 1972–2000.” Political Communication 19: 49–72, https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246489.Suche in Google Scholar

Burrell, B., L. Elder, and B. Frederick. 2011. “From Hillary to Michelle: Public Opinion and the Spouses of Presidential Candidates.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 41: 156–76, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2010.03835.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, L. J., and A. Reeves. 2011. “Turning Out the Base or Appealing to the Periphery? An Analysis of County-Level Candidate Appearances in the 2008 Presidential Campaign.” American Politics Research 39: 534–56, https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x10385286.Suche in Google Scholar

Devine, C. J., and K. C. Kopko. 2018. “Split Tickets? On the Strategic Allocation of Presidential Versus Vice Presidential Campaign Visits in 2016.” Sage Open July-September: 1–12.10.1177/2158244018796883Suche in Google Scholar

Devine, C. J. 2018a. “Oh, the Places They’ll Go: The Geography and Political Strategy of Presidential Campaign Visits in 2016.” In Studies of Communication in the 2016 Presidential Campaign, edited by Robert, E. DentonJr., 45–68. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Suche in Google Scholar

Devine, C. J. 2018b. “What If Hillary Clinton Had Gone to Wisconsin? Presidential Campaign Visits in the 2016 Election.” The Forum 16: 211–34, https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2018-0011.Suche in Google Scholar

Dick, J. 2016. Bill Clinton: The First Running Mate. Also available at https://www.rollcall.com/news/bill-clinton-first-running-mate (accessed July 15, 2019).Suche in Google Scholar

Elder, L., and B. Frederick. 2019. “Perceptions of Candidate Spouses in the 2012 Presidential Election: The Role of Gender, Race, Religion, and Partisanship.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7: 109–30, https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1338969.Suche in Google Scholar

Elder, L., B. Frederick, and B. Burrell. 2018. American Presidential Candidate Spouses: The Public’s Perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-319-73879-6Suche in Google Scholar

Heersink, B., and B. D. Peterson. 2017. “Truman Defeats Dewey: The Effect of Campaign Visits on Election Outcomes.” Electoral Studies 49: 49–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.07.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Herr, J. P. 2002. “The Impact of Campaign Appearances in the 1996 Election.” The Journal of Politics 64: 904–13, https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00152.Suche in Google Scholar

Hill, J. S., E. Rodriguez, and A. E. Wooden. 2010. “Stump Speeches and Road Trips: The Impact of State Campaign Appearances in Presidential Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43: 243–54, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096510000077.Suche in Google Scholar

Hill, D. 2006. American Voter Turnout: An Institutional Perspective. Boulder: Westview Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Holbrook, T. M., and S. D. McClurg. 2005. “The Mobilization of Core Supporters: Campaigns, Turnout, and Electoral Composition in United States Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 49: 689–703, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00149.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Holbrook, T. M. 2002. “Did the Whistle-Stop Campaign Matter?.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35: 59–66, https://doi.org/10.1017/s104909650200015x.Suche in Google Scholar

Jones, J. M. 1998. “Does Bringing Out the Candidate Bring Out the Votes? The Effects of Nominee Campaigning in Presidential Elections.” American Politics Quarterly 26: 395–419, https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x9802600401.Suche in Google Scholar

Keith, T. 2016. Is Bill Clinton Helping or Hurting His Wife’s Campaign?. Also available at https://www.npr.org/2016/10/05/496670378/is-bill-clinton-helping-or-hurting-his-wifes-campaign (accessed July 15, 2019).Suche in Google Scholar

King, D. C., and D. Morehouse. 2004. “Moving Voters in the 2000 Presidential Campaign: Local Visits, Local Media.” In In Lights, Camera, Campaign!: Media, Politics, and Political Advertising, edited by D. A. Schultz, 301–17. New York: Peter Lang.10.2139/ssrn.489644Suche in Google Scholar

MacManus, S. A., and A. F. Quecan. 2008. “Spouses as Campaign Surrogates: Strategic Appearances by Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates’ Wives in the 2004 Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 41: 337–48, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096508080529.Suche in Google Scholar

Mughan, A., and B. C. Burden. 1995. “The Candidates’ Wives.” In Democracy’s Feast: Elections in America, edited by H. F. Weisberg, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Suche in Google Scholar

Shaw, D. R. 1999. “The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988-96.” American Political Science Review 93: 345–61, https://doi.org/10.2307/2585400.Suche in Google Scholar

Stevenson, P. 2016. “Buy One, Get One Free”: Bill Clinton’s Turn as His Wife’s Presidential Bonus. Also available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/buy-one-get-one-free-bill-clintons-turn-as-his-wifes-presidential-bonus/?utm_term=.bb37fe56e0d4 (accessed July 15, 2019).Suche in Google Scholar

Wood, T. 2016. “What the Heck Are We Doing in Ottumwa, Anyway? Presidential Candidate Visits and Their Political Consequence.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667: 110–25, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216661488.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2020-09-29

Sie haben derzeit keinen Zugang zu diesem Inhalt.

Artikel in diesem Heft

https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2020-2002

Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel

presidential campaigns; campaign visits; vote choice; elections; Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton