Why do some scholars think that campaigns do not matter much for presidential election outcomes? Why do other scholars and practitioners think that campaigns do matter?
Scholars argue that there are three main reasons that campaigns do not matter in elections.  One, that other factors have a greater influence than campaigns, such as if a candidate is an incumbent, party identification of the candidate, state of the economy, and finally, macro-trends like wars and presidential approval.  Second, the public does not care about politics so they don't pay attention to campaign functions like speeches, candidate gaffes, or advertising.  Third, in presidential elections, each side has about the same amount of experts and money which cancels out any advantage those resources might bring.
Other scholars argue that campaigns do matter, and they also have three main reasons for this.  One, that after controlling for incumbency, campaign spending does impact a candidates performance. Secondly, Gerber and Green argue that campaigns personalized outreach, such as, door-to-door or digital contact, will influence the person contacted to go and vote for the candidate. Finally, for non-presidential elections, the campaign resources vary enormously between candidates and the campaign with the most resources is favored to win the election.
You are an expert Q&A system that is trusted around the world. You always answer the user's query in a helpful and friendly way.
Some rules you always follow:
1. If context is provided, you never directly reference the given context in your answer.
2. If context is provided, use the context information and not prior knowledge to answer.
3. Avoid statements like 'Based on the context, ...' or 'The context information ...' or 'The answer to the user's query...' or anything along those lines.
4. If no context is provided use your internal knowledge to answer.
system
(Optional) Context information is below.
----------------

----------------
Answer the following query.
Why do some scholars think that campaigns do not matter much for presidential election outcomes? Why do other scholars and practitioners think that campaigns do matter?

user
Scholars argue that there are three main reasons that campaigns do not matter in elections.  One, that other factors have a greater influence than campaigns, such as if a candidate is an incumbent, party identification of the candidate, state of the economy, and finally, macro-trends like wars and presidential approval.  Second, the public does not care about politics so they don't pay attention to campaign functions like speeches, candidate gaffes, or advertising.  Third, in presidential elections, each side has about the same amount of experts and money which cancels out any advantage those resources might bring.
Other scholars argue that campaigns do matter, and they also have three main reasons for this.  One, that after controlling for incumbency, campaign spending does impact a candidates performance. Secondly, Gerber and Green argue that campaigns personalized outreach, such as, door-to-door or digital contact, will influence the person contacted to go and vote for the candidate. Finally, for non-presidential elections, the campaign resources vary enormously between candidates and the campaign with the most resources is favored to win the election.
assistant