A Uniter and a Divider: American Presidential Campaigns and Partisan Perceptions of the National Economy

• Author: Corwin D. Smidt
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• Date: 01 March 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X19875712
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X19875712

American Politics Research

2020, Vol. 48(2) 329 –340

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X19875712

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Partisanship strengthens political engagement, but it also

distorts it. Partisans are motivated to seek out attitude-

confirming information, view it favorably, and be skeptical of

attitude-inconsistent information (Lodge & Taber, 2013;

Redlawsk, 2002; Stroud, 2008). These traits polarize percep-

tions of information that is seemingly straightforward

(Gaines, Kuklinski, Quirk, Peyton, & Verkuilen, 2007; Nyhan

& Reifler, 2010), such that partisan differences are often

greatest among the most informed (Bartels, 2008) or in high-

information contexts (Jerit & Barabas, 2012). But scholars

also demonstrate that these perceptual biases are contextually

dependent, meaning that these damning portrayals of parti-

sans may not always apply. If the information environment

fails to provide enough supportive information or people are

motivated to hold accurate perceptions, then partisan biases

can shrink (Bolsen, Druckman, & Cook, 2014; Bullock,

Gerber, Hill, & Huber, 2015; Druckman, 2012; Jerit &

Barabas, 2012; Parker-Stephen, 2013; Prior, Sood, & Khanna,

2015; Redlawsk, Civettini, & Emmerson, 2010).

In this regards, it is important to examine whether presi-

dential campaigns and its many contexts work to strengthen

or weaken partisan perceptual differences. Indeed, extant

studies provide an inconsistent picture of campaign effects

on partisan perceptions, documenting campaigns as either

unifying or polarizing perceptions across different domains.

Campaigns tend to polarize issue opinions or candidate eval-

uations (e.g., Kim, Taber, & Lodge, 2010), but they also

inform and unify mass perceptions of each candidate’s issue

position (Alvarez, 1997; Conover & Feldman, 1989; Franklin,

1991; Markus, 1982; Vavreck, 2009).

Why might campaigns be a uniter of some partisan per-

ceptions and a polarizer of others? I propose that is because

they are both a uniter and a divider. Presidential campaigns

contain competing or countervailing forces on public percep-

tions, where the net contribution of these forces varies by

campaign context and domain. Targeted communication pro-

vides partisans with a greater opportunity to select preference-

consistent information, and these effects are likely largest

among voters in battleground states. But elections and cam-

paign engagement also foster a social context that promotes

accurate perceptions as many types of campaign experiences

enhance accuracy motives and open-minded thinking

(Brader, 2006; Druckman, 2012; Kam, 2006, 2007; Marcus,

Neuman, & Mackuen, 2000). Differences in contexts over

time and across safe and battleground states provide us the

observational leverage to identify these countervailing

forces.

I evaluate these propositions by examining the dynamics

of partisan differences in economic evaluations across mul-

tiple campaigns. Various panel survey trends from campaigns

since 1980 fail to show campaigns dividing partisan

875712APRXXX10.1177/1532673X19875712American Politics ResearchSmidt

research-article2019

1Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

Corresponding Author:

Corwin D. Smidt, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.

Email: smidtc@msu.edu

A Uniter and a Divider: American

Presidential Campaigns and Partisan

Perceptions of the National Economy

Corwin D. Smidt1

Abstract

Do American presidential campaigns polarize or unify partisan perceptions? I propose that they do both, where the balance

of these countervailing forces varies by context. Campaign messages enable partisan differences, especially in battleground

states, but campaigns also promote social contexts that foster accuracy motives and reduce the effects of partisan biases

nationwide. After documenting panel data evidence of campaign trends toward unity, further tests compare the national

effects of campaign engagement with the local effects of campaign intensity using daily survey data on national economic

evaluations. In support of the countervailing forces framework, national engagement in presidential campaigns generally

increased levels of cross-partisan agreement by campaign’s end, but local campaign intensity enhanced partisan differences

in rate of responsiveness to the campaign. Although targeted campaigns reduced unifying effects in many states, presidential

campaigns typically have a net unifying effect on American economic perceptions, thereby strengthening economic voting.

Keywords

campaign effects, partisan biases, campaign learning, economic voting