Study: Presidential Visits Often No Help

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y., Oct. 22, 2000 -- It would seem like the best publicity a congressional candidate could get: a campaign rally with the president of the United States.

But does a presidential visit really pay off at the polls?

A study conducted by the White House in 1998 found that much of the time the answer is: No.

The review of President Reagan’s campaign stops in 1982 and 1986, and President Clinton’s stumping in 1994, found that two-thirds of the events didn’t help the candidate at all. Only one-third actually seemed to have the intended effect.

Former White House Political Director Craig Smith, who did the research, said presidential visits often seem to be a distraction for those they’re intended to benefit.

“By the time the president leaves town, supporters are excited but exhausted, and opponents are excited and rested and that sometimes is not a good dynamic,” said Smith. “In the last three or four days of an election, a presidential visit doesn’t necessarily help like we have thought in the past.”

Radioactive Clinton

Another factor: the undecided voters key to a close election may be among the least likely to be persuaded by a presidential endorsement. While President Clinton’s job approval rating stands at about 64 percent, experts say that in some races, he could actually turn off swing voters.

“With these undecided voters, Bill Clinton is radioactive,” said National Journal political analyst Charles Cook. “They really don’t like him. They may like his policies but they really don’t like him.”

So what should the president be doing to help Democratic candidates? All seem to agree that fundraising is a wise use of his time. And fundraiser-in-chief is a role Clinton has embraced with gusto. While he has attended only two traditional political rallies since the Democratic Convention, the president has spoken at more than 150 fundraisers for Democratic candidates, raking in a staggering $100 million.