This study asks whether populist campaign rhetoric matters for elections by increasing turnout rather than persuading vote choice. Using a large U.S. conjoint experiment that included an explicit abstention option, the authors separate mobilization effects of populist messaging from persuasion and from candidates’ policy positions. The paper's central contribution is testing whether populism changes who shows up to vote even when it does not change which candidate voters prefer.
Large U.S. conjoint experiment Explicit abstention option Distinguishes mobilization from persuasion
Data and methods
The authors report a large-scale survey-conjoint experiment conducted in the United States. The design presented respondents with candidate profiles and campaign messages and—unlike many prior conjoint or vignette experiments—included an explicit option to abstain, allowing the study to observe turnout-related responses in addition to forced candidate choice.
Main findings
According to the abstract, populist rhetoric had limited persuasive impact on vote choice but produced a small increase in mobilization (turnout). Mobilization effects were mainly evident among respondents who already held populist views. Across outcomes, voters’ agreement with candidates’ policy positions mattered far more for both vote choice and turnout than the presence of populist messaging itself.
- Populist messaging: limited persuasive effect on vote choice.
- Small, concentrated mobilization: turnout increases mainly among already-populist voters.
