Convention All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: The Midwest Political Science Association URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~mpsa/
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p82412_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

LoTempio, Andrew. "‘Get on the Plane': The Electoral Impact of Candidate Visits in the 2000 Presidential Campaign" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, Apr 15, 2004 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p82412_index.html>

LoTempio, A. J. , 2004-04-15 "‘Get on the Plane': The Electoral Impact of Candidate Visits in the 2000 Presidential Campaign" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p82412_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: Presidential campaign strategy is built upon the assumption that there is a positive relationship between candidate visits and media spending in a state and the probability of winning the election. The structure of the electoral college combined with mass media, high speed transportation, and modern polling techniques have created a general election campaign where candidates can focus their attention on a few key battleground states. Underlying the dozens of visits and the millions of dollars spent on commercials is the hope that all of their effort might do some good--garner more votes on Election Day. However, much of what scholars of American politics have learned about this relationship casts doubt on the correlation between the campaign and the outcome. Dubbed the minimal effects model, (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee 1954) research in this area suggests that campaigns have little impact on election outcomes because of the high degree of voter stability produced by partisan predispositions toward the nominees. If the operating assumption of contemporary campaigns is unfounded, as the “minimal effects” model posits, then the rallies, local media interviews and other visits that typify a candidate’s itinerary may be largely unwarranted. Combine this with how people running for office feel about the effect of campaigns (quoted in Fenno's Home Style): I'm skeptical of just about everything we do in a campaign. I don't know whether anything we do does any good. And, I've never been able to figure out any correlation between the amount of handshaking I do and the number of votes I get. Clearly, uncertainty about what works in a campaign, if anything, is what underlies most of the modern campaign. This research seeks to test the relationship between the campaign and the results of the election. Employing tracking polls for specific states, I investigate the impact of nominee visits on voter support in the 2000 General Election Campaign. Controlling for paid media spending, I evaluate whether there is greater variation in support for the nominees in competitive states with frequent visits than non-competitive states with fewer visits (i.e compare much visited Wisconsin to completely ignored New York). If candidate visits do matter, the implication would suggest that nominees who rely solely on media buys to secure a state may fall short on election day. In addition to advertising expenditures, the nominee’s presence on contested electoral soil may be a necessary, but not always sufficient, ingredient to secure victory in competitive states.

A Little Help From a Friend: Explaining Presidential Campaign Visits and Their Impact on Congressional Elections

Is Negativity Increasing as Time Goes By? Candidate Advertisements in the 2000, 2004, and 2008 Presidential General Election Campaigns

Weapons of Candidate Destruction: The Impact of Political Advertising in the 2004 Presidential Campaign

Candidate and Media Issue Convergence in the 1996 and 2000 Presidential Campaigns

Returning the Favor: The Impact of Presidential Campaign Visits on Legislators' Support for the President's Agenda