Political Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 889–910 | Cite as

Finding the Way Home: The Dynamics of Partisan Support in Presidential Campaigns

  • Michael Henderson
Original Paper


The tendency for lukewarm partisans to “come home” is generally regarded as the chief dynamic of presidential campaigns, but little is known about what draws these voters closer to their party’s candidate. The pattern is often taken as prima facie evidence that campaigns activate partisanship, but there is little direct evidence that party identification (PID) exerts any greater influence on candidate preference late in the campaign than it had earlier. This study uses panel surveys from two elections to uncover the mechanisms that lead partisans home. It demonstrates that past research focused on the fall campaign has missed evidence for activation of PID, which occurs as the primary phase closes. It also demonstrates that under certain conditions activation of ideology plays just as important a role in bringing partisans home as activation of PID. These findings indicate that the process whereby partisans “come home” is multi-faceted and may have nearly as much to do with ideology as with party loyalty.


Activation Campaigns Partisanship Ideology 



I would like to thank D. Sunshine Hillygus, Steven Ansolabehere, participants in the American Politics Research Workshop at Harvard University, participants in the Political Behavior and Identities Research Workshop at Duke University, and the members of the political science department at the University of Mississippi.

Supplementary material

11109_2014_9296_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 34 kb)


  1. Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., & Rhode, D. W. (1983). Change and continuity in the 1980 elections: Revised edition. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M. (1998). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bartels, L. M. (2006). Priming and persuasion in presidential campaigns. In H. E. Brady & R. Johnston (Eds.), Capturing campaign effects (pp. 78–112). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berelson, B., Lazars Feld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, J. (2008). The American campaign. College Station: Texas A&M Press.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Erikson, R. S., & Wlezien, C. (2012). The timeline of presidential elections: How campaigns do (and do not) matter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, S. (1989). Measuring issue preferences: The problem of response instability. Political Analysis, 1(1), 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finkel, S. E. (1993). Reexamining the ‘minimal effects’ model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics, 55(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiorina, M. P. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  16. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23(1), 409–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson, M., Hillygus, D. S., & Tompson, T. (2010). ‘Sour grapes’ or rational voting? Voter decision making among thwarted primary voters in 2008. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 499–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hetherington, M. J. (2011). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization (updated). In R. G. Niemi, H. F. Weisberg, & D. C. Kimball (Eds.), Controversies in voting behavior (5th ed., pp. 242–265). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hillygus, D. S., & Henderson, M. (2010). Policy issues and the dynamics of vote choice in the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 20(2), 241–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hillygus, D. S., & Jackman, S. (2003). Voter decision making in election 2000: Campaign effects, partisan activation, and the Clinton legacy. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter?. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Holbrook, T. M., & McClurg, S. D. (2005). The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout, and electoral composition in United States presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H. E., & Crete, J. (1992). Letting the people decide: Dynamics of a Canadian election. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Johnston, R., Hagen, M. G., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). The 2000 presidential election and the foundations of party politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnston, R., Thorson, E., & Gooch, A. (2010). The Economy and the dynamics of the 2008 presidential campaign: evidence from the national annenberg election study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 20(2), 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M., & West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplan, N., Park, D. K., & Gelman, A. (2012). Understanding persuasion and activation in presidential campaigns: The random walk and mean-reversion models. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 42(4), 843–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenski, K., Hardy, B. W., & Jamieson, K. H. (2010). The obama victory: How media, money, and message shaped the 2008 election. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. R., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the evidence for the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader: How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McClurg, S. D., & Holbrook, T. M. (2009). Living in a battleground: Presidential campaigns and fundamental predictors of vote choice. Political Research Quarterly, 62(3), 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson, D. A. M. (2009). Campaign learning and vote determinants. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piston, S. (2010). How explicit racial prejudice hurt Obama in the 2008 election. Political Behavior, 32, 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sides, J., & Vavreck, L. (2013). The gamble: Choice and chance in the 2012 presidential election. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tesler, M., & Sears, D. (2009). Obama’s race: The 2008 election and the dream of a post-racial America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Vavreck, L. (2009). The message matters: The economy and presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiley, D. E., & Wiley, J. A. (1971). The estimation of measurement error in panel data. In H. M. Blalock (Ed.), Causal models in the social sciences (pp. 364–373). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  40. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manship School of Mass CommunicationLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations