Finance, Lobbying

With the final stretch of the 2012 presidential election now here, some central research-oriented questions that are traditionally asked about campaigns are coming to the fore. These areas include: the state of the economy and its effects on electoral outcomes; the role of money and the power of ads; the impact of the candidate debates; the effectiveness of the campaigns’ “ground games”;  and the potential for “coattail” effects down the ballot.

Political officeholders have long been seen as having a wide range of advantages over challengers: Name recognition is no problem, as they’re always in the public eye. Even if voters don’t agree with every position a long-time incumbent might take, they like the prestige and power that can come with seniority. And most importantly, officeholders make policy, so donors know to whom they should be signing the checks.

The notion of a government “by the people, for the people” is one of the bedrock concepts of American democracy, but the reality is that policy outcomes are often influenced by a wide range of factors, not merely the candidates whom voters select to represent them on Election Day.

Scholars have hypothesized that state capitals such as Trenton, N.J., Albany, N.Y., or Springfield, Ill., may be more susceptible to political corruption because they are geographically remote from their state’s major metropolitan centers — and therefore remain out of the full glare of the public spotlight. But prior research has not definitively established a precise connection or pinpointed the mechanisms that might explain such a pattern.

Issue-specific political advertisements are ubiquitous during elections, and they’re often assumed to be effective in increasing voter turnout. Such ads frequently target specific groups — what political scientists sometimes call “issue publics” — such as veterans, parents or senior citizens.

Each American political season seems to bring with it a new round of scandals. Though critics of the media often complain about frivolousness and overkill, the content of the scandals often demands serious and significant coverage. However, judgments by news editors and reporters do influence the volume and treatment.