1
Introduction
From its humble roots in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, the U.S. presidency
has grown into the central branch of government. To be effective, presidents must not
only have the “power to persuade” policymakers within the Beltway, but must actively
cultivate a personal following across the country. For this reason, scholars have noted a
marked tendency for presidents to “go public” – i.e., to mobilize public support via
nationally televised speeches, symbolic photo-opportunities, and travel (Kernell 1997).
Expanding on this characterization, a number of authors further suggest that chief
executives engage in a nonstop campaign for public support. Political scientist Corey
Cook argues that the contemporary policymaking climate in Washington leaves
presidents with little choice: “[T]he permanent campaign model of governance relies on
modern technological advantages to overcome uniquely modern political disadvantages
facing contemporary presidents, including the growing individualism of members of
Congress, the increasing partisan polarization in Congress, and the demands of a twenty-
four hour news cycle.” (2002, 762) Put more succinctly, the permanent campaign is “a
necessary bulwark against the loss of strategic position” (Cook 2002, 763).
In this paper, we consider this permanent campaign hypothesis in a rigorous and
systematic fashion, focusing on one core element of modern campaigning: the president’s
use of polls to gauge American public opinion. A president and his top advisors
commission surveys for the same reasons that other elected officials and office-seekers
do – to assess the electorate’s thinking in a particular issue area, to test-drive one’s own
political stands, or to assess how the opposition is faring. Governing in today’s climate
would be unthinkable without such polling. If presidents are in fact engaged in more or
Convention