Suchergebnisse

Ground war efforts -- nonbroadcast campaign communications like phone calls, direct mail, & get-out-the vote activities -- were critical in 2002 competitive congressional elections in the US. They were broader than in prior years because their effectiveness was recognized. Democratic ground war strategy continued to be similar to that of the 1998 & 2000 elections, while republicans placed new emphasis on the ground war in 2002. Case studies from the Democratic AFL-CIO activity & the Republican National Federation of Independent Businesses & National Rifle Association are cited. Given ground war successes in 2002, even more emphasis on their tactics is expected in 2004. Difficulties in assessing ground war vs. broadcast communications are discussed. Tables, Figures. M. Pflum

The Last Hurrah presents a comprehensive analysis of the role soft money and issue advocacy play in congressional elections. It also documents the extent of campaigning done through the mail, on the telephone, and in person in competitive races. David Magleby and J. Quin Monson provide detailed coverage of the overall trends of the historic 2002 midterm election in which the president�s party leveraged its strengths to retake the Senate and make gains in the House. They pay particular attention to the role of President Bush and his political operation in candidate recruitment, fundraising, a

The Last Hurrah presents a comprehensive analysis of the role soft money and issue advocacy play in congressional elections. It also documents the extent of campaigning done through the mail, on the telephone, and in person in competitive races. David Magleby and J. Quin Monson provide detailed coverage of the overall trends of the historic 2002 midterm election in which the president¿s party leveraged its strengths to retake the Senate and make gains in the House. They pay particular attention to the role of President Bush and his political operation in candidate recruitment, fundraising, a

As illustrated by the case studies in this book, in the 2002 US Congressional elections, candidates were the focal point in most races, but soft money & its control over messaging was especially heavy. In part, because a law banning soft money was due to take effect right after the election, making the 2002 election the "last hurrah" for soft money. In prior elections, the Republicans always outspent the Democrats in hard money, so the Democrats used soft money & the ground war to make up the difference. The positive & negative consequences of using outside money for campaigns are evaluated, citing the cases in this book. The impact of noncandidate spending on voters was studied with a 2002 panel phone survey in 5 Congressional races & a campaign communications voter log survey in 4 US Senate campaigns. Voter exposure to campaign ads & communications was high, the message tone was negative, & the ad volume led to election fatigue & a turn to newspapers & TV news. The influence of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act on the 2004 elections, election finance, interest group participation, & ground war activities is discussed. Tables, Figures. M. Pflum

In competitive congressional races, noncandidate soft money & issue advocacy spending rivals & often exceeds spending by candidates. This symposium reports on research into noncandidate campaign activities in the 2002 congressional elections. The abstracts briefly summarize case studies investigating 26 battleground US Senate & House races & another 17 control races. The research was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts under the auspices of the Center for the Study of Elections & Democracy at Brigham Young U . A full-text version of each case study as well as an overview of the findings can be accessed online through the APSA Web site 3. Abstracts are appended for the following online articles: "The 2002 Arizona First Congressional District Race" by Frederic I. Solop & James I. Bowie; "The 2002 California Twenty-Ninth Congressional District Race" by Drew Linzer, David Menefee-Libey, & Matt Muller; "Provincialism, Personalism, and Politics: Campaign Spending and the 2002 U.S. Senate Race in Arkansas" by Jay Barth & Janine Parry; "Distorted by Outside Money: National Parties and the Race for Colorado's Seventh Congressional District" by Daniel A. Smith; "The 2002 Delaware Senate Race" by Joseph A. Pika; "Incumbent vs. Incumbent in Connecticut's Fifth Congressional District" by Sandra M. Anglund & Sarah M. Morehouse; "Indiana's Second Congressional District" by John Roos; "The 2002 Iowa House and Senate Elections: The More Things Change." by David P. Redlawsk & Arthur Sanders; "The Maryland Eighth Congressional District" by Owen Abbe; "The Michigan Senate Race" by Michael W. Traugott; "The 2002 Mississippi Third District Race: From a Spark to a Fizzle" by David A. Breaux; "The Minnesota U.S. Senate Race and the Second Congressional District Race" by William H. Flanigan, Joanne M. Miller, Jennifer L. Williams, & Nancy H. Zingale; "The 2000 Missouri Senate Race" by Martha Kropf, E. Terrence Jones, Matt McLaughlin, & Dale Neuman; "The 2000 and 2002 Montana Senate and House Races -- A Comparative Perspective" by Craig Wilson; "The New Hampshire Soft Money 'Orgy' of 2002" by J. Mark Wrighton; "The Pennsylvania Fourth Congressional District Race" by Chris Carman; "The North Carolina Eighth Congressional District Race" by Eric S. Heberlig; "The 2002 New Mexico Federal Races" by Lonna Rae Atkinson, Nancy Carrillo, & Margaret C. Toulouse; "The 2002 Pennsylvania Seventeenth Congressional District Race" by Stephen K. Medvic & Matthew M. Schousen; "The South Dakota Senate and At-Large Congressional District Races" by James Meader & John Bart; "When Redistricting Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry: Utah's Second Congressional District" by Kelly Patterson. 9 References. Adapted from the source document.

Political campaigns raise millions of dollars each election cycle. While past research provides valuable insight into who these donors are and why they are motivated to give, little research takes into account the actions of political campaigns. This paper examines why and how campaigns target habitual donors for political donations. Using the 2004 Campaign Communication Survey, a national survey of registered voters who were asked to collect and send in all campaign mail they received during the last 3 weeks of a campaign, we show that campaigns send donation solicitations predominantly to individuals who have previously donated to a campaign. We also show that campaigns match targeting fundraising appeals to the potential motivations for giving: campaigns target the type of fundraising appeal they use, whether ideological, solidary, or material, to match the socioeconomic and partisan characteristics of the potential donor. The implication of effective targeting is that the 'unequal' voice of participation in campaign contributions is not one-sided and simply resource based, but rather that campaigns also contribute to the situation with targeted messages to potential donors. Adapted from the source document.