Factors That Affect Electoral Outcomes (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes
Factors That Affect Electoral Outcomes
Understanding what influences election results in the USA is essential for analysing American politics. No single factor determines outcomes - instead, multiple elements interact to shape electoral success. The six key factors are: incumbency, issues, media, leadership and individual qualities, voter profile, and money.
Incumbency
Incumbency refers to being an existing elected representative seeking re-election. This provides substantial advantages that significantly increase the likelihood of electoral success.
Congressional incumbency
Incumbents enjoy remarkably high re-election rates. In the 2018 midterms, 90.5% of Senate and House incumbents who sought re-election were victorious. Similarly, in 2020, most incumbents secured re-election, often by larger margins than their party's presidential candidate achieved in the same area.
Key Incumbency Advantages
Incumbents possess several crucial advantages that make them difficult to defeat:
- Name recognition: Voters are familiar with who they are and what they represent
- Record of achievement: They can point to federal funding secured, jobs created, and tangible benefits delivered to their state or district - often called 'bringing home the bacon'
- Committee positions: Many serve on relevant congressional committees that influence policies particularly important to their region
- Experience: They can demonstrate commitment to public service and proven capability in office
- Established campaign infrastructure: They benefit from existing donor networks and campaign organisations
- War chests: Many build up substantial campaign funds that deter potential challengers from both within their party (via primaries) and from opposition parties
However, incumbency provides no absolute guarantee of victory. Vulnerable seats attract significant outside funding and attention.
Example: 2018 Midterm Incumbent Defeats
In the 2018 midterms, several high-profile incumbents lost their re-election bids:
- Four incumbent Democrats, including Joe Donnelly in Indiana, lost their seats
- One Republican, Dean Heller in Nevada, was defeated
- The tight Florida Senate race saw incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson defeated after total campaign spending reached approximately $118 million
These cases demonstrate that incumbency advantage can be overcome in competitive races with sufficient opposition funding and favorable political conditions.
Presidential incumbency
At the presidential level, incumbency similarly helps electoral prospects. Since 1945, there have been remarkably few truly one-term presidents. Jimmy Carter (1976-80) and Donald Trump (2016-20) are the only genuine examples, as other one-term presidents like George H.W. Bush (1988-92) followed a two-or-more-term president from the same party.
Most presidents secure higher vote tallies and Electoral College votes in their second election. Barack Obama in 2012 was unusual in being re-elected by a lower margin than his first term victory.
Issues
Policy issues, particularly questions of competence and trust, play a crucial role in determining electoral outcomes.
The economy
The economy typically emerges as the dominant issue in most elections. Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign strategist, James Carville, captured this reality with a sign in the Little Rock headquarters reading: 'It's the economy, Stupid!' This reminded the campaign team to maintain focus on attacking the incumbent president's economic record.
The Economy as the Key Issue
As a general principle, the economy serves as the key issue for most voters:
- Low taxes, falling unemployment, and economic optimism help candidates secure re-election, often benefiting from their party's presidential candidate's success
- Economic difficulties damage electoral prospects
- The reverse equally applies - economic difficulties damage electoral prospects
Crisis management and competence
The ability to handle unexpected crises at home and abroad significantly impacts voter perceptions.
Example: George W. Bush's Crisis Management
9/11 Response (Positive Impact): Bush's response to the 9/11 terror attacks was praised at the time for uniting the country. His approval ratings soared to 90% in the short term and undoubtedly strengthened his re-election prospects in 2004.
Hurricane Katrina Response (Negative Impact): Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, widely perceived as inadequate and delayed, had the opposite effect. His approval ratings, already declining, slumped to an average of 38% by November 2005.
October surprises
An October surprise refers to a news event, either deliberately timed or spontaneously occurring shortly before early November polling, which can influence a presidential election outcome. These can work either positively or negatively for candidates.
Example: October 2016 Surprises
In October 2016, two significant surprises emerged:
Trump's 'Hollywood Access' tape: A recording from 2005 surfaced featuring Trump making vulgar and disparaging comments about women. Whilst this unsettled his campaign, Trump responded by dismissing it as 'locker room banter' from 'many years ago' and offering an apology 'if anyone was offended'.
Clinton's email server controversy: Within days, Hillary Clinton faced accusations about using a private email server whilst serving as Secretary of State, with the FBI launching an inquiry.
The net impact of these events on the actual outcome remains difficult to measure. In normal campaigns with more conventional candidates, Trump's remarks might have proved fatal. However, as one white evangelical female voter explained her support: 'I'm looking for a bodyguard not a husband.' This illustrates how voters sometimes prioritise policy positions over personal conduct.
Media
Media remains a vital component of any election campaign, encompassing candidates' own publicity materials, staged debates, social media, and mainstream news coverage.
Political advertisements
Campaigns produce advertisements to project desired images and, crucially, to attack opponents' integrity and records. The 2012 Obama campaign released a 30-second advertisement titled 'Remember', which praised Obama's record on oil production and renewable energy whilst attacking opponent Mitt Romney for being 'in the pocket' of wealthy oil companies.
Most campaign advertisements are attack ads - messages portraying rivals as untrustworthy, corrupt, dangerous, or controlled by special interest groups. The classic 'Daisy' advertisement from 1964 established the modern template, implying that voting for Republican Barry Goldwater might lead the USA into nuclear war.
Televised debates
Televised candidate debates have been a longstanding feature of presidential campaigns since the first Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960.
Example: The Power of Visual Image - Nixon-Kennedy Debate (1960)
The first televised presidential debate demonstrated the power of visual image:
- Nixon refused makeup, appearing pale and sweaty on television
- Kennedy looked tanned and healthy
- Television viewers thought Kennedy won
- Radio listeners favoured Nixon
This highlighted the importance of public image in the television age.
Modern debates involve extensive preparation, rarely producing sensational or decisive moments. However, they attract substantial audiences. The first 2016 debate broke viewing records with 84 million viewers, surpassing the previous record of 80.6 million for the 1980 Reagan-Carter debate. The first Biden-Trump debate in 2020 attracted 73 million viewers, making it the third most-viewed televised debate.
Social media
Social media has significantly altered campaign dynamics. Most digital users tend to follow, like, or retweet candidates whose views they already support. Social media therefore proves more valuable for reinforcing the base than swaying allegiances. It allows candidates to communicate views directly without media filtering.
The Cult of Personality on Social Media
Social media further emphasises the cult of personality in American politics. Individuals, not parties, overwhelmingly attract followers.
By early 2020:
- Trump had 42 million Twitter followers and had sent approximately 42,000 tweets from his personal account (@realDonaldTrump)
- The Republican Party's Twitter account (@GOP) had just under 2.4 million followers
This stark contrast demonstrates how personality dominates party in American political discourse.
Mainstream media
Recent years have witnessed growing partisanship in mainstream media. News outlets such as Fox (Republican-leaning) and MSNBC (Democrat-leaning) reflect one side of the political spectrum, with even news reports featuring partisan dimensions.
In 2016, right-wing outlets emphasised Hillary Clinton's email server controversy, whilst liberal outlets focused on Trump's verbal indiscretions. This partisan divide in media coverage shapes how different voter groups receive and interpret political information.
Leadership and individual qualities of candidates
Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill famously stated 'All politics is local', but equally 'All politics is personal' in American politics. A distinctive characteristic of US politics compared to the UK is the emphasis on personality, often superseding party considerations.
Personality over party
Campaign advertisements and publicity materials rarely mention a candidate's party affiliation. Instead, they emphasise candidates' own qualities, experience, and policies. Party labels act as wrappers rather than determining campaign ingredients.
Example: Personal Branding Over Party Identity
Presidential campaign slogans belong to individual candidates, not parties:
- 'Hope and Change' was Obama's slogan in 2008, not the Democratic Party's
- 'Make America Great Again' belonged to Trump in 2016 and 2020, not the Republican Party
This reflects how American political campaigns centre on individual personalities rather than party platforms.
This personality emphasis partly reflects the primary system, where candidates run and fund their own campaigns. Success derives from personal efforts, contacts, and organisational abilities rather than convincing a selection committee. The presidential office itself - preeminently a personal rather than party position - encourages individual focus, even though party connections remain vital for securing office and liaising with Congress.
Paradoxical qualities
Leadership qualities sought by voters often prove paradoxical and contradictory.
The Paradox of Leadership Expectations
Candidates must appear:
- Principled yet pragmatic
- Compassionate yet capable of tough decisions
- Calm and clear-headed in crises, yet consultative and urgent in action
These contradictory expectations create significant challenges for candidates trying to appeal to diverse voter groups.
Candidates emphasising family values or liberal tolerance inevitably risk exposure if extra-marital affairs or sexual harassment allegations emerge. Following the #MeToo movement, numerous Democrat and Republican lawmakers saw careers ended, including long-serving Michigan Democrat John Conyers, who resigned in December 2017 after allegations of sexually harassing female staff members and secretly using taxpayer money to settle harassment claims.
Personal qualities and mistakes remain central to election campaigns.
Voter profile
Voting behaviour refers to the analysis of why people vote as they do, often broken down into distinct groups (race, gender, age, geography) to allow comparison between different voter categories.
Voter background proves crucial for understanding voting patterns. Many American voters are predisposed to varying degrees to support a particular party. Gender, race, religion, education, geography, age, and self-identification as conservative, liberal, or centrist all significantly influence voting behaviour.
Example: Predicting Voter Behaviour Through Combined Characteristics
When combining voter characteristics, voting disposition becomes increasingly predictable:
Likely Republican voter:
- An older, white male, regular churchgoer in the rural Midwest is unlikely to support Democrats enthusiastically
Likely Democratic voter:
- A young, single, graduate female with no religious affiliation living in a large coastal city is unlikely to champion Republicans
The terms 'red America' and 'blue America' capture this divided nation concept, implying sharp political polarisation. Even regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans divided sharply. In 2020, 82% of registered Biden supporters considered the outbreak 'very important' to their vote, compared to only 24% of Trump supporters. Democrats consistently expressed far more concern about the virus than Republicans.
Primacy and recency factors
Two main categories of factors affect American voting:
Understanding Primacy and Recency Factors
Primacy factors: Voter profile - background characteristics that predispose voting behaviour (age, race, gender, religion, education, geography)
Recency factors: Issues, candidates' personalities, and campaign effectiveness - factors that can shift votes during campaigns
Primacy factors establish baseline voting tendencies, whilst recency factors can override these predispositions in specific elections.
Negative voting
Voters sometimes cast negative votes - supporting candidates not from enthusiasm but to prevent opponents winning.
Example: Negative Voting and White Evangelicals in 2016
Many white evangelicals were hardly natural Trump supporters. Unlike previous Republican candidates such as George W. Bush or Reagan, Trump could not authentically claim to have 'found God' along life's journey.
However, his promises to adopt a pro-life abortion stance, appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, and oppose the liberal social agenda convinced many to back him. Above all, supporters united to prevent Clinton reaching the White House.
This demonstrates how voters may support candidates they find personally problematic to prevent outcomes they view as worse.
Money
Whilst money cannot buy electoral outcomes directly, it significantly helps candidates mount strong campaigns for office.
Examples exist of lower-spending candidates winning:
- Trump was heavily outspent by Hillary Clinton in 2016, yet won
- North Dakota incumbent Heidi Heitkamp heavily outspent her challenger in 2016 but lost
- Conversely, Biden heavily outspent Trump in 2020 and won
These cases show money alone doesn't guarantee victory, but its absence severely limits competitiveness.
However, without access to adequate funding, candidates face slimmer success chances, especially in higher-tier elections.
What Money Purchases in Campaigns
Money purchases essential campaign resources:
- Professional advice and consultants
- Airtime and advertising
- Campaign infrastructure
- Staff and resources
Without adequate funding, even strong candidates struggle to reach voters effectively or respond to opposition attacks.
Money often affects outcomes. In 2012, Obama outspent challenger Mitt Romney. Would Obama have won regardless? Probably yes, given incumbency advantages and Romney's limitations as a candidate. Nevertheless, financial resources remain a crucial factor in competitive races.
Exam guidance
Exam Strategy for Electoral Outcomes Questions
When analysing factors affecting electoral outcomes, remember:
- No single factor determines results - multiple elements interact
- Different factors hold varying importance depending on the specific race and context
- Presidential races may weigh factors differently than congressional elections
- Historical examples strengthen arguments - learn key case studies
- Consider both positive factors (why candidates win) and negative factors (why opponents lose)
Key Points to Remember:
-
Incumbency provides substantial advantages, with congressional incumbents enjoying approximately 90% re-election rates due to name recognition, records of achievement, and established campaign infrastructure
-
Issues, particularly the economy, typically dominate voter concerns, alongside competence in crisis management and impact of October surprises
-
Media encompasses political ads (predominantly attack ads), televised debates, increasingly important social media, and partisan mainstream outlets
-
Personality and leadership qualities dominate American politics more than party affiliation, with campaigns emphasising individual characteristics and social media reinforcing this cult of personality
-
Voter profile (primacy factors) including age, race, gender, religion, education, and geography predispose voting behaviour, whilst issues and campaign effectiveness (recency factors) can shift allegiances
-
Money doesn't guarantee victory but adequate funding proves essential for competitive campaigns, purchasing advertising, professional advice, and campaign infrastructure