Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sure, vote for Jill Stein. [View all]Going to Wisconsin wouldn't have changed anything. It's already been demonstrated that visiting a state only occasionally improves a candidate's results in a state.
Really.
Abstract
Hillary Clintons failure to visit the key battleground state of Wisconsin in 2016 has become a popular metaphor for the alleged strategic inadequacies of her presidential campaign. Critics who cite this fact, however, make two important assumptions: that campaign visits are effective, in general, and that they were effective for Clinton in 2016. I test these assumptions using an original database of presidential and vice presidential campaign visits in 2016. Specifically, I regress party vote share on each candidates number of campaign visits, at the county level, first for all counties located within battleground states, and then for counties located within each of six key battleground states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The results of this analysis do not clearly support either of the assumptions made by Clintons critics. In general, none of the presidential or vice presidential candidates including Clinton significantly influenced voting via campaign visits. However, Clinton is one of only two candidates along with Mike Pence, in Ohio whose campaign visits had a significant effect on voting in an individual state. Specifically, Clintons visits to Pennsylvania improved the Democratic tickets performance in that state by 1.2 percentage points. Also, there is weak evidence to suggest that Clinton might have had a similar effect on voting in Michigan. It is unclear from this evidence whether Clinton also would have gained votes, or even won, in Wisconsin had she campaigned in that state. But two conclusions are clear. First, Clintons visits to Democratic-leaning battleground states did not have the backfiring effect that her campaign reportedly feared. Second, Donald Trump did not win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin as a direct result of his campaign visits to those decisive states.
Hillary Clintons failure to visit the key battleground state of Wisconsin in 2016 has become a popular metaphor for the alleged strategic inadequacies of her presidential campaign. Critics who cite this fact, however, make two important assumptions: that campaign visits are effective, in general, and that they were effective for Clinton in 2016. I test these assumptions using an original database of presidential and vice presidential campaign visits in 2016. Specifically, I regress party vote share on each candidates number of campaign visits, at the county level, first for all counties located within battleground states, and then for counties located within each of six key battleground states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The results of this analysis do not clearly support either of the assumptions made by Clintons critics. In general, none of the presidential or vice presidential candidates including Clinton significantly influenced voting via campaign visits. However, Clinton is one of only two candidates along with Mike Pence, in Ohio whose campaign visits had a significant effect on voting in an individual state. Specifically, Clintons visits to Pennsylvania improved the Democratic tickets performance in that state by 1.2 percentage points. Also, there is weak evidence to suggest that Clinton might have had a similar effect on voting in Michigan. It is unclear from this evidence whether Clinton also would have gained votes, or even won, in Wisconsin had she campaigned in that state. But two conclusions are clear. First, Clintons visits to Democratic-leaning battleground states did not have the backfiring effect that her campaign reportedly feared. Second, Donald Trump did not win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin as a direct result of his campaign visits to those decisive states.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/pol_fac_pub/116/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Here in Wisconsin in '16, Stein received more votes than Trump's margin of victory,
elocs
Nov 2023
#2
If Nader hadn't been a fool with an ego the size of the Twin Towers, it never would have..
Hekate
Nov 2023
#5
Hillary Clinton did run a piss-poor campaign. Biden has already been to Wisconsin several times now already.
elocs
Nov 2023
#6
I remember seeing an animated GIF of campaign stops from October 1 till Election Day 2016
Polybius
Nov 2023
#14
Are there no TVs, computers, electronic devices, newspapers, books? Only way to know what a
betsuni
Nov 2023
#24
I'm no fan of third parties, but the argument that they cost us the 2016 or 2000 elections
Bucky
Nov 2023
#28
I looked into the Greens and what I saw was lefties like me and huge component of right wingers ...
marble falls
Nov 2023
#31
There were some who were gullible enough to donate money to her for her fake recount.
MichMan
Nov 2023
#29
Post about her so as to never accept her as harmless, and she provides laughs and giggles along the way.
marble falls
Nov 2023
#34
Stein defrauded a ton of people in 2016 when she promised to contest the 2016 election
LetMyPeopleVote
Nov 2023
#38