Capturing campaign effects /

This timely volume surveys research on campaigns. These studies are tied together with the much-discussed "minimal-effects" view of campaigns, which asks, "Are campaigns overrated as a subject of study, or have we been missing effects by studying them the wrong way?" By its nature as an edited volume, this book does not attempt broad answers to such questions, but the latter idea is more in evidence here. Specialists will find much to ponder, but the work does not appeal to an audience beyond scholars and some graduate students, given the thick prose and focus on methodological questions. The introductory chapter provides a detailed literature review. Two points on the minimal-effects idea worth noting are Bartels's argument that competing vigorous campaigns have to occur for the campaign to appear to "not matter," and Jenkins's view that minimal effects might only apply to very structured elections in which "voters have only one choice given their attitudes." Gary Jacobson's new approach to the old issue of how much incumbent and challenger spending matters in congressional races bears his usual good writing and reasoning. Most other entries are competent but less compelling. ^BSumming Up: Recommended. Graduate students and faculty. J. Heyrman Berea College