NOTE: This resource has been developed by APSA to provide media with information from notable political scientists on issues in American politics, including introductory essays, contact information for dozens of scholars around the country, and citations for recent research. For more information, contact Bahram Rajaee (brajaee@apsanet.org)

Thomas Holbrook, University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee

Experts

Scott Adler University of Colorado 303-492-6659 Elections and policy effects Bruce E. Altschuler SUNY Oswego 315-312-3451 Presidency, campaigns and elections, New York state politics, political parties Larry M. Bartels Princeton University 609-258-4794 Electoral politics, public opinion, mass media Steven J. Brams New York University 212-998-8510 Electoral college, alternative voting systems Barry C. Burden Harvard University 617-495-4249 Voter turnout, third parties, campaigns, surveys, primaries James Campbell SUNY-Buffalo 716-645-2251 Elections, campaigns, voting behavior, parties, forecasting, public opinion, legislative behavior, presidential-congressional relations, political participation, American political thought, campaign finance Robert Erikson Columbia University 212-854-0036 American political behavior, elections, methodology and statistics Kenneth Goldstein University of Wisconsin- Madison 608-263-2414 Political advertising, political participation, politics of interest groups, survey research methodology John C. Green University of Akron 330-972-5182 Elections, campaign finance, party politics Sunshine Hillygus Harvard University 617-496-4220 Political behavior, campaigns and elections, political organizations, societal impact of information technology Thomas Holbrook University of Wisconsin- Madison 414-229-6468 Elections, political campaigns, political communications, public opinion, mass media, state politics David J. Lanoue University of Alabama 205-348-5981 Presidential debates Jeffrey Levine Eagleton Institute of Politics 732-932-9384 ext. 240 Sandy Maisel Colby College 207-859-5307 Congressional elections, candidate recruitment, third parties, redistricting, Jewish candidates Quin Monson Brigham Young University 801-422-8017 Andrew Perrin University of North Carolina 919-962-6876 Deliberation, political culture, ideology, protest, media Steven Puro St. Louis University 314-977-3037 Electoral college Chapman Rackaway  Fort Hays State University  785-628-5391 Campaign process and strategy, youth voting and civic engagement, Kansas and Missouri state politics Richard S. Randall New York University 201-763-3033  Andrew Rudalevige Princeton University 609-258-0879 Presidency-Congressional relations, White House staff, policy implementation Daron Shaw University of Texas- Austin 512-232-7275 Campaigns and elections, political parties, public opinion and voting behavior, applied survey research Fred Solop University of Northern Arizona 928-523-1515 Elections, public opinion, American politics, social movements, racial profiling  Lester Spence Washington University St. Louis 314-369-5513 Lynn Vavreck University of California- Los Angeles 310-825-4855 Campaigns, political advertising, campaign reform, voting behavior, media and politics Leonard Williams Manchester College 260-982-5335 Political ideology and American politics  Chistopher Wlezien University of Oxford 011 44 1865278515 Political behavior, public opinion, political institutions, public policy

Now that Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee has chosen Senator John Edwards as his running-mate, the contours of the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign are beginning to take shape. While it is difficult to tell exactly how things will play out, it is possible to get a general sense of what is likely to transpire based on analysis of past elections.

The first consideration is the context of the election. While strategies, candidates, and campaign events do influence how people vote, these are somewhat limited by the political and economic environment in which the election occurs. In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the context of the 2004 election is quite unlike any in recent history. Still, there are some general indicators-presidential approval and the state of the economy, in particular-that we can use to try to divine how events are likely to unfold. With the notable exception of the 2000 election, voters have habitually returned the incumbent party to office during good economic times and when the sitting president is relatively popular, and have thrown out the incumbent party during bad economic times and when the president is relatively unpopular. On balance, the context of the election favors the Bush/Cheney ticket. At this writing (July 12th) President Bush's approval rating is hovering around 47-48%. These are not strong numbers for re-election, but nor do they portend disaster for the Republican ticket. At the same time, economic growth in the second quarter was quite strong and many indicators point toward a sustained recovering. While most in the community of election forecasters have not produced final predictions at this time, it appears that most of the models will come in with predictions somewhere in the range of 53-56% of the two-party vote for George W. Bush.

But, of course, this forecast isn't cast in stone, and the expected margin is narrow enough that a strong Kerry/Edwards campaign effort, especially if coupled with a lackluster Bush/Cheney effort, could make the difference. Indeed, we need look back no farther than the 2000 election for just such a scenario. Given the state of the economy and President Clinton's high approval numbers in the summer of 2000, Al Gore should have easily won the election. In retrospect, it is clear that the 2000 election was one in which the campaign itself heavily influenced the outcome.

Among the "big" campaign events are the party nominating conventions and the debates. As these events and the fall campaign approach, certain patterns will emerge. The convention period is probably more important for John Kerry, as it provides him with a relatively uncontested opportunity to introduce himself to the nation and to shape his public image. If all goes well, Kerry can expect a significant bump in the polls coming out of his convention. The size of this bump could be limited by the fact that he is already riding higher than expected in the polls and that he announced his choice of a running mate almost three weeks prior to the convention, thus perhaps sacrificing some of the momentum typically gained by making that announcement the week before the convention. Still, challengers usually get a bigger bump than incumbents, a pattern from which Kerry should benefit. Bush should also expect a bump from the Republican convention. But, by virtue of being well known already, incumbents usually get less of a bump than challengers. However, if Bush goes into his convention trailing Kerry by a wide margin in the polls, his post-convention bump could be larger than expected, as wayward Republicans find their way home.

There are a couple of characteristics worth remembering about convention bumps, however. First, they are not always very substantial. In 1984 and in 1996, neither party's convention produced a bump of much magnitude. Second, they can be transitory and decay rather quickly (Gore, 2000), or they can provide a springboard into a strong fall campaign (Bush, 1988; Clinton, 1992). And, finally, even very large bumps do not necessarily translate into victory (Goldwater, 1964).

Debates are the other high profile campaign event and, while they grab a lot of attention and can provide some of the most memorable moments from the campaign, they usually do not have much effect on candidate support. While conventions produce "bumps," debates can best be described as producing "blips." This is not to say they do not serve an important function-indeed, there is evidence that voters gain useful information about candidates from the debates-just that they are unlikely to change a lot of minds or play a pivotal role in deciding the outcome of the election.

Conventions and debates are part of what might be considered the broader, national campaign. But we also know that the on-the-ground campaign strategies will focus heavily on the "battleground states," those states in which the outcome is in enough doubt that a superior effort by either side could tip the balance. Throughout September and October, residents of these states will have many opportunities to get up-close and personal with the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. At some level, the focus on battleground states means that residents of non-competitive states will experience the campaign vicariously (sorry, Idaho).

And while the highly visible campaign activities, such as campaign advertising and candidate visits to the states, will be most apparent, there is every indication that voter mobilization will play a more prominent role in the 2004 campaign than it has in other years. Based on experiences in recent congressional elections, as well as the closeness of the 2000 election, the candidates' organizations, parties, and outside groups are gearing up for major mobilization drives in battleground states this fall.

Throughout the campaign-on the ground, in the conventions, and at the debates-both candidates will struggle to frame the campaign. If the campaign becomes about terrorism, renewed economic prosperity, or "flip-flops," then the advantage goes to President Bush. If the campaign becomes about mounting casualties in Iraq, the Two Americas, or misleading the public in the runup to the war, then the advantage goes to Senator Kerry. Of course, the media play an important role in this process, something both campaigns are aware of, and something that will itself shape many of the campaigns' activities.

It is worth remembering, also, that the world itself is volatile and any number of events could influence the outcome of the election. The situation in Iraq could descend into even greater instability, or it could hit a relatively smooth patch by November. The economy could continue to improve, or it could be slowed by additional spikes in energy costs or uncertainty associated with the war in Iraq. And of course, there are any number of other "outside" events that could shape the campaign and influence the election outcome.

All of this is to say that right now the context of the election favors the Bush/Cheney ticket, but not so strongly that Republicans should take it for granted. The campaign itself provides many opportunities for the Kerry/Edwards ticket and external events could also sway the outcome. The bottom line is that this is likely to be a very hard-fought and interesting campaign season.

Thomas Holbrook is Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where he specializes in forecasting models, conventions, debates, and other campaign events. He is the author of Do Campaigns Matter? and former editor of American Politics Research. He can be reached at holbroot@uwm.edu and 414-229-6468.

Recent Publications on the Campaign Dynamics

Clinton, Joshua D., John S. Lapinski. 2004. "'Targeted' Advertising and Voter Turnout: An Experimental Study of the 2000 Presidential Election," Journal of Politics 66:1 (February).

Johnson, Richard, Michael Hagen, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 2004. The 2000 Presidential Election and the Foundations of Party Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Knack, Stephen and Martha Kropf. 2003. "Voided Ballots in the 1996 Presidential Election: A County-Level Analysis," Journal of Politics 65:3 (August).

Petrocik, John R., William Benoit, and Glenn J. Hansen. 2003. "Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952-2000." Political Science Quarterly. 118:4 (Winter): 599-626.

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2002. "Gubernatorial Influence in Presidential Elections: Fact or Myth." PS: Political Science & Politics 35:4 (December):701-703.

Bartels, Larry and Lynn Vavreck. 2002. Campaign Reform: Insights and Evidence. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Burden, Barry C. 2002. "United States Senators as Presidential Candidates." Political Science Quarterly. 117:1 (Spring): 81-102.

Steger, W.P., Hickman, J., & Yohn, K. 2002. "Candidate Competition And Attrition In Presidential Primaries, 1912-2000." American Politics Research 30:5 (September): 528-554.

Vavreck, Lynn and Constantine Spiliotes. 2002. "Campaign Advertising: Partisan Convergence or Divergence?" Journal of Politics 64:1 (February).

Wlezien, Christopher, and Robert Erikson. 2002. "The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns," Journal of Politics 64: 969-993.

Campbell, James E. 2000. The American Campaign : U.S. Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote. College Station, TX : Texas A&M University Press.

Shaw, Daron R. 1999. "The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988-1996." American Political Science Review 93: 345-361.

Holbrook, Thomas. 1996. Do Campaigns Matter? Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Huckfeldt, Robert and John Sprague. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ongoing Studies of the 2004 Presidential Elections

The Annenberg National Election Survey


The American National Election Studies   


The Wisconsin Advertising Project


Related Sites

Iowa Electronic Markets' Political Market


Jim Stimson's trial-heat tracker


Polling Report