Political scientists have a surprisingly difficult time demonstrating that campaigns actually affect the way people vote. That seems counter-intuitive -- the 2008 campaigns spent literally billions of dollars trying to convince voters of the merits of their candidates or of the dangers of electing their opponents. How could this not have some effect? But the evidence remains elusive. Campaign spending, candidate speeches, advertisements, etc., often seem to have at most a small and fleeting influence on voters' evaluations of the candidates.
One reason campaign effects are so hard to detect, of course, is that anything that one campaign does is often countered by a well-matched opposing campaign. But 2008 wasn't quite like that. At times, the presidential campaign seemed like asymmetric warfare, with Obama spending and organizing circles around McCain. So I thought it might be possible to detect some campaign effects in this environment.
One area in which Obama outran McCain was in the establishment of local field offices. In eleven battleground states I examined, Obama had established field offices in 43 percent of the counties; McCain did so in only 18 percent. Back during the primaries and caucuses, the Clinton campaign had mocked Obama for being so aggressive in creating field offices. As Clinton's Colorado campaign manager remarked, "Clearly, they've taken the Starbucks approach to the campaign. Pretty soon, they'll have one on every corner." Was this just wasted money, or did it matter?
My findings on this topic suggest that it mattered. In a paper that was just published by Public Opinion Quarterly, I find that in counties where Obama had established a field office, the Democratic share of the presidential vote was almost a percentage point higher than it was in counties with no such field offices. Note this boxplot from the state of Colorado, showing the Democratic increase in the presidential vote between 2004 and 2008 in counties with and counties without Obama field offices:
Now, Obama won by more than that, so the field office effect doesn't seem to have been pivotal for the entire election. But many presidential elections (notably 2000 and 2004) are won by far fewer electoral votes. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which these field offices are determinative.
So, for those of you who volunteered insane hours during the campaign and wondered if what you were doing actually made a difference, it did.
(Cross-posted at Enik Rising)
Follow Seth Masket on Twitter: www.twitter.com/smotus
Yeah? I live in NC, and I'm one of the ones who volunteered insane hours - and even got chased by rednecks with dogs while canvassing. A fat lot of good it did. Obama has not fought for ONE issue he campaigned on. I will not be showing up at the local field office the next time around. Nor will my money. Right now I doubt I'll even vote next time, unless a real progressive runs.
I attended healthcare rallies, talked to reporters, attended a townhall meeting, recruited family and friends, and wrote and called my congressmen repeatedly. Just so Obama could go silent on the Public Option.
I guess they think we'll be there again in 2010 and 2012 because of the the threat of a Palin, etc, and we'll turn out to vote for the lesser of two evils.
But I think they're seriously misjudging the depth of our anger.
If the gopers field a decent candidate in 2012, there goes 53 electoral votes for Obama.
I worked in Routt County, which was Obama territory, but we were also responsible for Jackson, Moffat, and Rio Blanco counties. Sure, we (smartly) concentrated on Steamboat Springs most of all, but we did a lot of work in Craig, and frequently called and/or canvassed Hayden, Meeker, Oak Creek, and many other towns and rural areas. We brought up all of our counties' Democratic percentages over 2004 by an average of several percentage points (can't find all of my math right now to give you exact figures.) One of the most exciting things there was how rare it was for that region to get a field office- that's what the locals all told me, anyway.
It was an impressive effort though and I think that the next time there is a progressive candidate that is not a corporate tool we will see the people come out to make a difference again. Not for this guy though. He has used these people for the last time, I fear.