Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T10:01:23.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

(Un)Conventional Wisdom and Presidential Politics: The Myth of Convention Locations and Favorite-Son Vice Presidents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2016

David Schultz
David Schultz*
Affiliation:
Hamline University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional wisdom pervades presidential politics, and there is no doubt that this will again be true in 2016. First among “old politicians’ tales” is that a political party’s placement of a national convention in a specific state can affect presidential voting there, swinging or flipping it to its presidential candidate. Second, the selection of a vice-presidential candidate as a favorite son (or daughter) will deliver a state’s electoral votes to a presidential ticket. Is either of these pearls of wisdom true? This article tests the truth of both the convention location and favorite-son claims and finds little evidence of their efficacy.

Type
Politics
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 420 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Associated Press. 2008. “Minn. Senate Race Tightens to a Gap of 204 Votes.” USA Today, November 10. Available at http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/mn.htm. Accessed October 21, 2015.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Matthew D., Mann, Christopher B., Olivella, santiago, Simon, Arthur M., and Uscinski, Joseph E.. 2014. “(Where) Do Conventions Matter? The Impact of National Party Convention Location.” Journal of Politics 76 (4): 1045–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burmila, Edward M. and Ryan, Josh M.. 2013. “Reconsidering the ‘Palin Effect’ in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (4): 952–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2000. The American Campaign. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Devine, Christopher J. and Kopko, Kyle C.. 2013. “Presidential Versus Vice Presidential Home State Advantage: A Comparative Analysis of Electoral Significance, Causes, and Processes, 1884–2008.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 43 (4): 814–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, Todd J. 2014. “GOP’s Choice of Dallas or Cleveland Will Send a Message.” Dallas Morning News, June 30. Available at www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140629-gops-choice-of-dallas-or-cleveland-will-send-a-message.ece. Accessed October 21, 2015.Google Scholar
Hunter Hecht, Stacy and Schultz, David. 2015. Presidential Swing States: Why Ten Only Matter. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Google Scholar
Jackovics, Ted. 2012. “Party Poopers: Conventions Rarely Woo Voters in Host States.” Tampa Tribune, August 12. Available at www.tbo.com/ap/politics/party-poopers-conventions-rarely-woo-voters-in-host-states-461696. Accessed October 21, 2015.Google Scholar
Knuckey, Jonathan. 2012. “The ‘Palin Effect’ in the US 2008 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 275–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koza, John R., Fadem, Barry, Grueskin, Mark, Mandell, Michael S., Richie, Robert, and Zimmerman, Joseph F.. 2013. Every Vote Equal, 4th edition. Washington, DC: National Popular Vote Press.Google Scholar
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 2010. U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. and Wildavsky, Aaron. 2000. Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics. New York: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Pomper, Gerald M. 2010. “The Presidential Election: Change Comes to America.” In The Elections of 2008, ed. Nelson, Michael, 45–73. New York: CQ Press.Google Scholar