Search

Since the 2000 Presidential election voter education and mobilization has witnessed a renaissance in targeted contact and segmented messaging. Candidates, political parties, and interest groups have taken advantage of advances in electronic databases to divide and subdivide the electorate into different groups, and have different messages and messengers for each subgroup of voters. For decades, scholars and practitioners have known that personalized campaign appeals are more effective. Labor unions, religious leaders, military veterans, and racial and ethnic community leaders have typically been used by campaigns to make a stronger, more personalized, and perhaps more trusting connection with voters. This paper takes up the question of whether or not personalized or segmented contact during a campaign is more successful at convincing voters than "generic" contact, or no contact at all.Using data from a national survey of Latino registered voters in 2004, we examine the impact of being contacted by a co-ethnic messenger on support for the Republican and Democratic parties. While some previous studies have examined voter turnout or vote choice, this paper examines the deeper implications of co-ethnic contact, including support for public policy and candidate favorability. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Despite limited experience courting the Latino community, both political partiesmade a point to campaign aggressively for Latino "swing" votes through advertisements andget-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives in 2006. While there is a new commitment to Spanishlanguageadvertising and direct contact with Latino voters, no evidence exists that thistargeted outreach has worked. The question remains, does targeted advertising influence thevote choice of Latinos, and, how does this advertising affect the more general population?To address these questions, we implemented an experiment during the 2006 Californiaelection. Latino and non-Latino subjects were randomly assigned to a control or treatmentgroup. Those in the treated groups received a flyer endorsing Arnold Schwarzenegger forgovernor, containing an endorsement from a Latino or an Anglo political figure. Thetreatment ads were further divided into English only or in both English/Spanish. Thus, thegroups were as follows: Anglo endorser English, Latino endorser English, Anglo endorserbilingual, and Latino endorser bilingual. We expect to find that targeted messages shouldhave a stronger influence on vote preference than non-targeted messages among Latinos.Further, the combined effect of a Latino endorser with a message delivered in bothlanguages might have the strongest effects. Finally, non-Latinos should be less receptive tothe Latino-targeted ads, perhaps witnessing a demobilizing effect. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]