How do candidates reach voters

Campaigns and candidates have not become more amicable in the years since then. This is an early version of negative advertising. Credit: Library of Congress, OpenStax included image. Once television became a fixture in homes, campaign advertising moved to the airwaves. Television allowed candidates to connect with the voters through video, allowing them to appeal directly to and connect emotionally with voters.

While Adlai Stevenson and Dwight D. Eisenhower were the first to use television in their and campaigns, the ads were more like jingles with images. Over time, however, ads became more negative and manipulative. President Lyndon B. If the voters stayed home, Johnson implied his opponent, Barry Goldwater, might start a war.

The ad aired once as a paid ad on NBC before it was pulled, but the footage appeared on other news stations as newscasters discussed the controversy over it. Another source of negative ads is from groups outside the campaigns. Sometimes, shadow campaigns, run by political action committees and other organizations without the coordination or guidance of candidates, also use negative ads to reach voters.

Even before the Citizens United decision allowed corporations and interest groups to run ads supporting candidates, shadow campaigns existed. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of , or McCain—Feingold, included a requirement that candidates stand by their ad and include a recorded statement within the ad stating that they approved the message.

Although ads, especially those run by super PACs, continue to be negative, candidates can no longer dodge responsibility at least for those they directly run. Candidates are also frequently using interviews on late night television to get messages out.

Soft news, or infotainment, is a new type of news that combines entertainment and information. Shows like The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight make the news humorous or satirical while helping viewers become more educated about the events around the nation and the world.

The candidates were able to show their funny sides and appear like average Americans, while talking a bit about their policy preferences. Debates are an important element of the general election season, allowing voters to see candidates answer questions on policy and prior decisions. While most voters think only of presidential debates, the general election season sees many debates. In a number of states, candidates for governor are expected to participate in televised debates, as are candidates running for the U.

Debates not only give voters a chance to hear answers, but also to see how candidates hold up under stress. Because television and the Internet make it possible to stream footage to a wide audience, modern campaign managers understand the importance of a debate. Photo of the presidential debate in St. Louis In , the first televised presidential debate showed that answering questions well is not the only way to impress voters. Senator John F. Kennedy, the Democratic nominee, and Vice President Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee, prepared in slightly different ways for their first of four debates.

Although both studied answers to possible questions, Kennedy also worked on the delivery of his answers, including accent, tone, facial displays, and body movements, as well as overall appearance.

Nixon, however, was ill in the days before the debate and appeared sweaty and gaunt. He also chose not to wear makeup, a decision that left his pale, unshaven face vulnerable.

Candidates and their campaign managers are aware that visuals matter. The Internet has given candidates a new platform and a new way to target voters. In the election, campaigns moved online and created websites to distribute information.

They also began using search engine results to target voters with ads. Candidates also use social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to interact with supporters and get the attention of younger voters. The election environment is complex and most voters do not have time to research everything about the candidates and issues. Yet they will need to make a fully rational assessment of the choices for an elected office. To meet this goal, they tend to take shortcuts.

One popular shortcut is simply to vote using party affiliation. Many political scientists consider party-line voting to be rational behavior because citizens register for parties based upon either position preference or socialization. Similarly, candidates align with parties based upon their issue positions. A Democrat who votes for a Democrat is very likely selecting the candidate closest to his or her personal ideology.

While party identification is a voting cue, it also makes for a logical decision. About half of voters will make their decision based upon party membership, so candidates will focus on winning over independent voters and visiting states where the election is close. The election was no exception to this consistent pattern of voters affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic party to vote for the candidate who was nominated by their respective parties.

Nationally available exit polling data showing how party identification impacted voting in the election. They may also vote based on gender or race, because they assume the elected official will make policy decisions based on a demographic shared with the voters. In , a sizable portion of the electorate wanted to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because they offered new demographics—either the first woman or the first black president. Demographics hurt John McCain that year, because many people believed that at 71 he was too old to be president.

Election campaigns are vital to achieving those goals. Elections that are genuinely competitive offer equitable opportunities for contestants to convey their positions to citizens and compete for votes.

Election campaigns provide candidates and political parties with opportunities to present their message to citizens, helping voters make educated and informed decisions on election day. In order to help ensure an even playing-field and an election that ultimately reflects the will of citizens, any public resources allocated to election contestants must be equitable.

Decision-making processes about how those resources are allocated should be transparent, so contestants and the broader public can understand and trust the outcomes. With access to information about election campaigns, including the official campaign window and public resource allocations, parties and candidates can design their campaign activities and understand what they are entitled to from the state, if anything.

Access to data about election campaigns allows contestants and civil society to explore whether candidates have equitable access to whatever public campaign resources are provided in a given context, if any, including media and space for campaign events like rallies.

That is part of the reason why over the past few election cycles, campaigns have shifted to other forms of contact, including mail and texting. Texting is similarly effective. A reminder text has been shown to increase turnout among habitual voters by about 3 percentage points. Campaigns have developed texting systems that let volunteers reach broader audiences more easily than traditional texting. Canvassers send texts directly and recipients can reply, interacting with the canvasser via text in real time.

Studies suggest this form of text outreach can have an even greater impact on turnout among those who choose to engage with a canvasser. Yet, as these outreach methods have become less novel, response rates have plummeted , creating the same challenges we see with in-person methods in terms of being able to have direct contact with voters.

Even before the pandemic hit, candidates and campaigns were struggling to find ways to reach voters.