Public Attention and Head-to-Head Campaign Fundraising: An Examination of U.S. Senate Elections

Authors

  • William Curtis Ellis Oral Roberts University
  • Joseph T. Ripberger University of Oklahoma
  • Colin Swearingen John Carroll University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-779X.2017.36.1.30-53

Abstract

Does public attention to political candidates impact fundraising margins in U.S. Senate elections? Applying a novel conceptualization of public attention, we examine U.S. Senate elections from 2004 through 2014 and find that increases in relative public attention relate to increases in head-to-head fundraising margins in open seat races. We conclude by asking whether or not all attention to candidates is "good" attention. Evidence from the 2006 Allen/Webb election suggests that all attention is not "good" attention. This race demonstrates that candidates can supply attention-grabbing action that increases relative public attention while stimulating exceptional losses in relative fundraising margins. Further research must clearly theorize conditions under which supplying public attention-grabbing behavior may damage political campaigns. 

Author Biographies

William Curtis Ellis, Oral Roberts University

Chair and Associate Professor of History, Humanities and Government 

Joseph T. Ripberger, University of Oklahoma

Deputy Director for Research at the Center for Risk and Crisis Management at the University of Oklahoma and a Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS)

Colin Swearingen, John Carroll University

Assistant Professor

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1988. “Explaining Senate Election Outcomes.” The American Political Science Review 82 (2): 385–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/1957392.

Adams, Greg D., and Peverill Squire. 1997. “Incumbent Vulnerability and Challenger Emergence in Senate Elections.” Political Behavior 19 (2): 97–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/586474.

Askitas, Nikos, and Klaus Zimmermann. 2009. “Google Econometrics and Unemployment Forecasting.” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465341.

Ayers, John W., Kurt Rubisl, and John S. Brownstein. 2011. “Using Search Query Surveillance to Monitor Tax Avoidance and Smoking Cessation Following the United States’ 2009 ‘SCHIP’ Cigarette Tax Increase.” PLoS ONE 6 (e16777).

Bond, Jon R., Richard Fleisher, and Jeffery C. Talbert. 1997. “Partisan Differences in Candidate Quality in Open Seat House Races, 1976-1994.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (2): 281–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/448958.

Epstein, David, and Peter Zemsky. 1995. “Money Talks: Deterring Quality Challengers in Congressional Elections.” The American Political Science Review 89 (2): 295–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082426.

Falkinger, Josef. 2008. “Limited Attention as a Scarce Resource in Information-Rich Economies.” The Economic Journal 118 (532): 1596–1620. https://doi.org/10.2307/20108876.

Flemming, Roy B., B. Dan Wood, and John Bohte. 1999. “Attention to Issues in a System of Separated Powers: The Macrodynamics of American Policy Agendas.” The Journal of Politics 61 (1): 76–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647776.

Gaddie, Ronald Keith, and Charles S. Bullock. 2000. Elections to Open Seats in the US House: Where the Action Is. Rowman & Littlefield Pub Incorporated. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=c77KglaGFF0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=elections+to+open+seats+in+the+U.S.+House&ots=AvjIlhzMc8&sig=R_gtP3ZL3FVyuYe9B0mY6QAep7E.

Gerber, Alan. 1998. “Estimating the Effect of Campaign Spending on Senate Election Outcomes Using Instrumental Variables.” The American Political Science Review 92 (2): 401–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585672.

Gimpel, James G., Karen M. Kaufmann, and Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz. 2007. “Battleground States versus Blackout States: The Behavioral Implications of Modern Presidential Campaigns.” The Journal of Politics 69 (3): 786–97.

Goldenberg, Edie N., and Michael W. Traugott. 1980. “Congressional Campaign Effects on Candidate Recognition and Evaluation.” Political Behavior 2 (1): 61–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/586427.

Granka, Laura. 2013. “Using Online Search Traffic to Predict US Presidential Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (02): 271–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513000292.

Grier, Kevin B. 1989. “Campaign Spending and Senate Elections, 1978-84.” Public Choice 63 (3): 201–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/30025191.

Gruszczynski, Michael W., and Michael W. Wagner. 2010. “Google It: A New Way to Measure the Agenda-Setting Effect.” In . Vol. 26.

Henry, Gary T., and Craig S. Gordon. 2001. “Tracking Issue Attention: Specifying the Dynamics of the Public Agenda.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 65 (2): 157–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/3078800.

Jacobson, Gary C. 1992. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins. http://www.citeulike.org/group/582/article/369482.

Jennings, Will, and Peter John. 2009. “The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 838–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/20647954.

Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HPYdDVu_ghMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Jones+Baumgartner+%22The+Politics+of+Attention%22&ots=nOkUqgrcww&sig=KC9zOBlB4syjxcJ_4YPgAPOB5o0.

Koehler-Derrick, Gabriel. 2013. “Quantifying Anecdotes: Google Search Data and Political Developments in Egypt.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (02): 291–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513000267.

Krasno, Jonathan S., Donald Philip Green, and Jonathan A. Cowden. 1994. “The Dynamics of Campaign Fundraising in House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 56 (2): 459–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132148.

Lazarus, Jeffrey. 2008. “Why Do Experienced Challengers Do Better than Amateurs?” Political Behavior 30 (2): 185–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9046-5.

Mayhew, David R. 1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6 (3): 295. https://doi.org/10.2307/3233931.

Mccallum, Malcolm L., and Gwendolyn W. Bury. 2013. “Google Search Patterns Suggest Declining Interest in the Environment.” Biodiversity and Conservation 22 (6-7): 1355–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0476-6.

Mellon, Jonathan. 2013. “Where and When Can We Use Google Trends to Measure Issue Salience?” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (02): 280–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513000279.

Mixon, Jr., Franklin G., Chena C. Crocker, and H. Tyrone Black. 2005. “Pivotal Power Brokers: Theory and Evidence on Political Fundraising.” Public Choice 123 (3/4): 477–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/30026696.

Mondria, Jordi, Thomas Wu, and Yi Zhang. 2010. “The Determinants of International Investment and Attention Allocation: Using Internet Search Query Data.” Journal of International Economics 82 (1): 85–95.

Neuman, W. Russell. 1990. “The Threshold of Public Attention.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (2): 159–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2749448.

Newig, Jens. 2004. “Public Attention, Political Action: The Example of Environmental Regulation.” Rationality and Society 16 (2): 149–90.

Pelat, Camille, Clement Turbelin, Avner Bar-Hen, Antoine Flahault, and Alain-Jacques Valleron. 2009. “More Diseases Tracked by Using Google Trends.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 15 (8): 1327.

Ragas, M. W., and H. Tran. 2013. “Beyond Cognitions: A Longitudinal Study of Online Search Salience and Media Coverage of the President.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 90 (3): 478–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013493792.

Reilly, S., S. Richey, and J. B. Taylor. 2012. “Using Google Search Data for State Politics Research: An Empirical Validity Test Using Roll-Off Data.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12 (2): 146–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440012438889.

Ripberger, Joseph T. 2011. “Capturing Curiosity: Using Internet Search Trends to Measure Public Attentiveness.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (2): 239–59.

Scharkow, Michael, and Jens Vogelgesang. 2011. “Measuring the Public Agenda Using Search Engine Queries.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 23 (1): 104–13.

Scheitle, Christopher P. 2011. “Google’s Insights for Search: A Note Evaluating the Use of Search Engine Data in Social Research*.” Social Science Quarterly 92 (1): 285–95.

Squire, Peverill, and John R. Wright. 1990. “Fundraising by Nonincumbent Candidates for the U. S. House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15 (1): 89–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/440003.

Stewart, Charles. 1989. “A Sequential Model of U. S. Senate Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 14 (4): 567–601. https://doi.org/10.2307/439959.

Swearingen, C. Douglas, and Walt Jatkowski. 2011. “Is Timing Everything? Retirement and Seat Maintenance in the US House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (2): 309–30.

Swearingen, C. Douglas, and Joseph T. Ripberger. 2014. “Google Insights and U.S. Senate Elections: Does Search Traffic Provide a Valid Measure of Public Attention to Political Candidates?: Google Insights and U.S. Senate Elections.” Social Science Quarterly 95 (3): 882–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12075.

Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. “On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with ‘most Important Problem.’” Electoral Studies 24 (4): 555–79.

Zheluk, Andrey, Casey Quinn, Daniel Hercz, and James A Gillespie. 2013. “Internet Search Patterns of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Digital Divide in the Russian Federation: Infoveillance Study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 15 (11): e256. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2936.

Zhu, Jian-Hua. 1992. “Issue Competition and Attention Distraction: A Zero-Sum Theory of Agenda-Setting.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 69 (4): 825–36.

Zheluk, A., J. A. Gillespie, and C. Quinn, 2012: Searching for Truth: Internet Search Patterns as a Method of Investigating Online Responses to a Russian Illicit Drug Policy Debate. Journal of Medical Internet Research 14 (6), e165. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2270.

Downloads

Published

2017-05-31

Issue

Vol. 36 No. 1 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.