Trying to Persuade Voters? Good Luck With That.

It’s taken me a while to get to this, but it’s probably of considerable interest to us political junkie types. Joshua Kalla and David Broockman, who have been involved for some time in research on campaign tactics, recently undertook some very powerful field experiments to get a better fix on what works and what doesn’t when it comes to persuading voters. They reported their findings in a recent paper, and the bottom line is grim: party cues are now so powerful that nothing works in partisan general elections. Here are the basic findings, which I’ll explain below:

The first bar shows the effects of advertising a few months before an election. It looks promising! But as the second bar shows, it wears off by Election Day. In fact, the impact might even backfire, producing fewer votes than doing nothing at all.

So how about just running the ads within two months of the election? Sorry. The effect is minuscule.

How about door-to-door canvassing, the gold standard of campaigning? Previous field experiments had suggested it actually has a negative effect, but the new, more powerful studies were slightly more positive: the effects aren’t negative, but they’re pretty close to zero.

Finally, there’s something that Kalla and Broockman call “targeted” persuasion. This involves detailed surveys to identify voters who might be persuadable on a particular issue (abortion, say) and then hitting them with ads or phone calls on just that subject. At first glance this seems promising, with an average effect of about 1.65 percentage points.

But that’s 1.65 percentage points among a very small group. As a percentage of the entire electorate, it’s much smaller. And it’s very expensive to do this kind of thing.

In other words, nothing works:

The best estimate for the persuasive effects of campaign contact and advertising—such as mail, phone calls, and canvassing—on Americans’ candidate choices in general elections is zero. Our best guess for online and television advertising is also zero, but there is less evidence on these modes.

The paper is not entirely bad news. Ordinary campaigning works fairly well in primary elections, where both candidates are from the same party, and for ballot measures. The authors also emphasize that although few people are genuinely persuadable, there are other tools that do work: registration drives among likely supporters and ground-game efforts to get your supporters to the polls (GOTV).

But if you’re hoping to change people’s minds in a partisan race, good luck. You probably won’t. This is why American elections have become such dismal slogs of attack ads and appeals to the base. Nothing else really seems to have much effect.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate