Because they generally use “feels” rather than actual data?
Presidential nominees love to consider home state advantage when choosing their running mates. But a vice president's state turns out to make no difference in an election.
www.politico.com
n our new
book, we analyzed state-level election returns from 1884-2012 and individual-level survey data from 1952-2008 to determine whether vice presidential candidates do, in fact, deliver a home-state advantage—and, if so, by how much. If the advantage is real, we should be able to detect and quantify it.
We used three distinct methods. First, if the home-state advantage is real, we should see predictable (and statistically significant) deviations in the voting trends of a running mate’s home state, relative to national voting trends, across decades of elections data. Second, linear regression analysis should show that parties win a higher percentage of the vote from states that are home to the running mate on their ticket in a given election. Finally, survey data from the American National Election Studies should tell us that individuals (not states) respond differently to elections that feature a vice presidential candidate from their home state. Do they vote for a different party? Are they more likely to vote at all, and to become engaged in the campaign?
Our conclusion: While
presidential candidates typically enjoy a home-state advantage (approximately 3 points to 7 points), vice presidential candidates generally do not. In each of the three analyses described above, a presidential ticket performs no better in the vice presidential candidate’s home state than we would expect otherwise. Statistically speaking, the effect is zero.
We did find that veep home-state voters are more likely to
care who wins an election compared with non-home state voters—but they aren’t more likely to turn out to vote, volunteer for or donate money to a campaign, influence other voters or attend political rallies.
www.axios.com
