Please contact me at lee.hannah@psu.edu for original files.

1. Day 8 –The Electoral Game
July 9, 2013

2. PA National Congressional Districts
Source: http://www.redistricting.state.pa.us/Maps/House.cfm

3. Pennsylvania State House Map
Source:
http://aws.redistricting.state.pa.us/Redistricting/Resou
rces/GISData/Districts/Legislative/House/2011-
Revised-Final/PDF/2011-Revised-Final-Plan-Map-
House.pdf

4. Pennsylvania State Senate Map
Source:
http://aws.redistricting.state.pa.us/Redistricting/Resources/GI
SData/Districts/Legislative/Senate/2011-Revised-
Final/PDF/2011-Revised-Final-Plan-Map-Senate.pdf

5. Running for Higher Office – Previous
Assumptions
 Expected utility of winning a higher office - E(Uh)
 E(Uh) = phBh – Ch
 Expected utility of retaining the current, lower office -
E(Ul)
 E(Ul) = plBl – Cl
 Under this assumption, an ambitious politician will
attempt to move to higher office when:
 E(Uh) = phBh – Ch >E(Ul) = plBl – Cl
 What is problematic about this assumption?

6. Running for Higher Office – A Two-Stage
Decision Process
 Maestas and colleagues argue that there is a stable
disposition, or function, that each legislator holds.
 Stage 1
 Progressive Ambition = f(E(UA)
 = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M)
 Where pgenis the long-run probability of winning office
 Bmargis the expected gain from the target office
 Cmargis the expected costs from running for the target office
 M = personal motivations outside of the cost-benefit analysis
 Those who enter Stage 2 have already crossed a
threshold level of ambition.
 Stage 2 Pr(Run | Progressive Ambition > 0 = f(Pt, pgen,Ct,)

7.  f(E(UA)
 = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M)
pgen Bmarg Cmarg M
Estimation of
winning the party
nomination.
Assessment of
prestige and
effectiveness in U.S.
House career.
Family-cost index Desire to make
social or business
contacts
Estimation of
chances of winning
the general election.
Assessmentrelative
to current position in
state government.
Campaign-cost
index
Perception of district
partisan balance.
Signals from party.

8. Results
What is this
model
predicting?

9. Moving to the Second Stage
 f(E(UA) = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M)
 If f(E(UA)) > 0, then they are scored as „1‟ (i.e. ambitious)
 If f(E(UA)) ≤ 0, then then they are scored as „0‟ (i.e. not
ambitious)
Interviews
N = 597
F(E(UA))
1
0
N = 263
N = 334

12. Discussion
 How do the authors connect their findings to political
responsiveness?
 What are the implications for their findings?
 What can they not determine from this study?
 How might this study be extended?

13. Making It: The Electoral Game
 Asking the right questions
 What constituency to win over
 How to become familiar to voters
 Which leaders or groups to garner support
 How to reach voters most effectively
 Choosing the message
 Effective, simple, repeatable brand

14. Messaging in Campaign Ads
 Sen. Ron Johnson (R – WI)
 “We‟re just a Wisconsin family worried about our country.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8MSP8yFSsY
 Washington outsider -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzsIsBLJCCg
 Had enough of these phony political commercials?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMExLKHUyg0
 Sen. Jim Webb (D – VA)
 Appealing to the other side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEmjJIk8ga0
 Rep. Morgan Griffith (R – VA)
 Association - Obama Loves Rick Boucher -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7t8b42ZiTo
 Policy - Cap and Trade -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxj_ko_Uz3g

15. Choosing the Wrong Message
 Daniel Freilich (D – VT) for Senate
 “I‟m on a Cow”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedde
d&v=4I9h2d8hw6g#at=24
 Rep. Alan Grayson (D – FL)
 Taliban Dan -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWdyf9eSkqQ
 Paul R. Nelson (R – WI) for House
 Ron Kind, The Wrong Kind -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5LNXi5hwg
 CarlyFiorina (R – CA) candidate for Senate
 Demon Sheep -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlgU23QGksI
 Way too far. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-
live/video/mitt-romney-ad-1/n27669/

16. Fundraising
 “I‟d rather wrestle a gorilla than ask anybody for fifty
cents.” Senator John Glenn (D - Ohio)
 Sources of Congressional candidate funds:
 1) Individual contributors
 $2,400 per candidate
 $45,600 per election
 2) PACS
 3) Party Committees
 4) Personal Funds
 Incumbents always do better. Why?
 House incumbents outspent challengers six times over in 2010.
 Senate incumbents outspent 11 times over in 2010.
 2012 Spending in PA Races
 http://www.opensecrets.org/states/cands.php?state=PA&cycle=
2012

17. Can you buy votes?
 Not exactly.
 Challengers
 Spending is positively correlated with electoral success.
 Incumbents
 Spending negatively correlated with electoral success.
 Why?
 Spending matters less later in campaign races.

18. Campaign Techniques
 Air Wars
 Positive vs. Negative ads – what are the tradeoffs?
 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002
 Requires candidates personally appear with their advertisements.
 Evolving mass media
 “Word of mouth on steroids.”
 The Ground War
 “Pressing the flesh.”
 Get out the vote (GOTV) drives
 Parallel Campaigns
 Outside players – Freedom Watch – “Dina Titus must be from
TaxUs” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5O7rwAj6G4
 Citizens United v. FEC - Corporate spending
 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205
 Super PACs