Abstract

Political advertisements are an integral part of presidential campaigns to win the election. In creating these ads, candidates choose positive and negative messages to send to voters about themselves and the opponent. While there is substantial scholarship on campaigning, much of the literature focuses on the effects and outcomes for voters instead of candidates. These strategies are important to consider when asking what explains the variation in presidential candidate campaigning? In particular, do incumbents campaign differently than challengers? The theory in this paper argues that incumbent candidates will campaign less negatively than their challengers when they are ahead in the polls and when their presidential approval rating is higher. Several regression analyses are run to test this argument using campaign ad data, polling data, and presidential approval ratings from the 2004 and 2012 general election periods. Partial support is found for the hypothesis. In some circumstances, incumbents do run fewer negative ads relative to the challenger when they are ahead in the polls and when their approval rating is higher. These findings pose implications for democratic processes in the U.S., such as elections, and suggest possible avenues for future research.

How to Cite