Assessing the effectiveness of targeted versus general contact: The case of Latino voter mobilization in 2004.

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. While nationwide and one-size-fits-all campaigns can be cheaper and easier to implement, smaller, targeted campaigns might be more effective in winning the hearts and minds of 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 just voter turnout or vote choice, this paper examines the deeper implications of co-ethnic contact, including support for public policy, candidate favorability, and strength of partisanship. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]