Hitler’s speeches, while rationally targeted, had a negligible impact on the Nazis’ electoral fortunes; only the 1932 presidential runoff, an election preceded by an extraordinarily short, intense and one-sided campaign, yielded positive effects

Munzert, Simon. 2018. “Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933.” SocArXiv. August 1. doi:10.31235/osf.io/t75p3

Abstract: Hitler’s rise to power amidst an unprecedented propaganda campaign initiated scholarly interest in campaign effects. To the surprise of many, empirical studies often found minimal effects. The predominant focus of early work was on U.S. elections, though. Nazi propaganda as the archetypal and, in many ways, most likely case for strong effects has rarely been studied. We collect extensive data about Hitler’s speeches and gauge their impact on voter support at five national elections preceding the dictatorship. We use a semi-parametric difference-in-differences approach to estimate effects in the face of potential confounding due to the deliberate scheduling of events. Our findings suggest that Hitler’s speeches, while rationally targeted, had a negligible impact on the Nazis’ electoral fortunes. Only the 1932 presidential runoff, an election preceded by an extraordinarily short, intense and one-sided campaign, yielded positive effects. This study questions the importance of charismatic leaders for the success of populist movements.

Check also Kalla, Joshua and Broockman, David E., The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments (September 25, 2017). Forthcoming, American Political Science Review; Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 17-65. American Political Science Review. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2017/11/the-best-estimate-of-effects-of.html