Did Joe Biden spend the 2020 campaign hiding in his basement? Did Hillary Clinton cost herself the 2016 election by not bothering to visit Wisconsin? Did Donald Trump’s rallies fire up his base and win him the presidency?

To many political junkies, the answers seem painfully obvious: Yes, yes, yes—of course! Ergo, the obvious lesson for 2024: Biden and Trump—or whoever the nominees may be—better hit the campaign trail hard, because that’s where the election could be decided.

But is there any truth to that lesson, or to the other familiar narratives about campaign visits?

You’ll find answers—the real ones—in my book, I’m Here to Ask for Your Vote: How Presidential Campaign Visits Influence Voters. It’s the most comprehensive analysis yet of where presidential candidates travel and what difference (if any) such visits make. What I find may surprise you.

As it turns out, the conventional wisdom about campaign visits is more myth than reality.

Take these three common assumptions, or “myths”: (1) Biden refused to come out of his basement to campaign in 2020; (2) for candidates in general, campaign visits win votes; and (3) campaign visits work because they help fire up the party base.

My analysis does not support any of these assumptions. Yet I would still argue that campaign visits matter. In fact, they are essential to American democracy. Let me explain.

About the Data

First things first: where do my data come from? And what is a campaign visit, anyway?

My analysis is based on an original dataset of 1,440 campaign visits from the 2008–2020 elections, called the Campaign Visits Database. It includes all visits (from September 1 through Election Day) made by the major-party presidential or vice-presidential candidates over the past four elections—from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin to Kamala Harris.

I define “campaign visits” as any public, in-person appearance apparently organized or initiated by the candidates or their campaign for the purpose of appealing to a localized concentration of voters. This includes traditional campaign rallies and local meet-and-greets. It does not include national events such as debates, or events from which the press or the public are excluded (e.g., private fundraisers, press conferences, etc.).

The Campaign Visits Database allows me to see beyond the conventional wisdom and let the evidence speak for itself.

Myth #1: “Biden in the Basement”

A common criticism of Joe Biden in 2020, and ever since, has been that he refused to leave his basement and actually campaign for the presidency. This was true during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, when Biden (as well as Trump) called off in-person campaign events. Biden’s team converted his basement into a high-tech studio, from which he conducted an unprecedented virtual campaign, including everything from simulated “rallies” and “ropelines” to fundraisers.

Biden began holding in-person campaign events in the summer of 2020, and many more in the fall. But to Trump and many of his supporters, it made no difference. Even while standing beside him on a debate stage in Cleveland, Trump insisted that Biden was “lock[ed] . . . up in a basement.” The image (reinforced by a photoshopped Republican ad) stuck. Literally speaking, the basement narrative was untrue. But it served as a powerful metaphor for Republican charges that Biden was too cautious in his approach to COVID-19 and too feeble to serve as president. It even raised questions about legitimacy. How, critics asked, could this man be president if he won’t bother to run for the office?

The fact is, Joe Biden made 66 campaign visits in 2020—more than Mike Pence (58) or Kamala Harris (57), and only nine fewer than Donald Trump (75)! Biden’s travels, from Phoenix and Tampa to Duluth and Des Moines, put the lie to charges of his subterranean imprisonment. By the end of the campaign, Biden recognized the zombie narrative for what it was. From a jampacked drive-in rally in Atlanta, he wryly tweeted: “Who let all these people into my basement?”

There is, however, a more nuanced case to make against Biden—that, if not “running” in a traditional sense, he was sort of “jogging” for the presidency in 2020. Biden is the only presidential candidate since 2008 who spent most of his time off the campaign trail, logging visits on only 29 days (45 percent) after September 1. He did, however, compensate by averaging more visits (2.3) per day while on the campaign trail than nearly any other recent candidate.

Myth #2: Visits = Votes

Hillary Clinton famously failed to visit the battleground state of Wisconsin in 2016. Critics have cited this as evidence that Clinton took victory over Trump for granted and had only herself to blame for losing. But this assumes that campaign visits actually work—that they reliably, even automatically, gain the candidate votes.

The fact is, campaign visits usually do not deliver votes. How do I know?

In my book, I use various statistical tests to evaluate whether campaign visits influence local voters. I do this for each presidential and vice-presidential candidate since 2008. I also estimate these effects in terms of county vote share (election returns) and individual vote choice (survey data). And I account for other possible explanations by including statistical controls and using alternative model specifications.

For most candidates, there is no clear evidence that their campaign visits influenced voters. That includes Clinton in 2016, and even Trump.

So, who did gain votes via campaign visits?

John McCain and Barack Obama, in 2008. However, the effects are quite small. For each visit to a given county, I estimate that McCain picked up an additional one-half of a percentage point, versus three-quarters of a point for Obama.

Surprised? Consider that candidates from both parties often visit the same counties or media markets and therefore may cancel each other out. Consider, too, how many other factors influence voters, especially party loyalty. Most people have their minds made up long before the candidates come to town.

Myth #3: Visits Fire Up the Base

In today’s polarized political environment, it may seem as if campaign visits only serve to mobilize the party faithful, not to persuade undecided voters. Is that the point? Does it work?

This one’s more complicated.

It’s true: campaign visits typically are geared toward mobilizing partisans to get out and vote. I know because I’ve analyzed the political and demographic characteristics of counties visited by each presidential or vice-presidential candidate since 2008. Every Democrat except Biden in 2008 spent most of their time visiting friendly territory. On the Republican side, Palin in 2008 and Trump in 2020 did the same.

Yet campaign visits do not seem to mobilize partisans. They are much more likely to persuade undecided voters.

My analysis shows that campaign visits generally do not increase voter turnout. This is true even for candidates—such as McCain and Obama—whose visits apparently gained them votes. In other words, they picked up support from within the existing electorate, not by expanding it. That’s persuasion.

Furthermore, campaign visits rarely change votes in the most partisan counties or among the most partisan survey respondents. I find these effects mostly in “swing” counties and among independents—as is true for Obama in 2008, and even Trump in 2016.

Candidates usually try to mobilize voters via campaign visits but fail to do so. They are more effective at persuading undecided voters. This is a better way to spend their time than trying to fire up the base.

Reality Check

You’re going to hear a lot about campaign visits this election season—about Biden needing to come out of his basement and Trump racking up votes at his rallies. My advice? Be skeptical. Most of the conventional wisdom you hear is based on little, if any, good evidence. In fact, as my book shows, the evidence usually points in the other direction.

But, in challenging the prevailing myths about campaign visits, I must be careful not to create a new one. Let’s be clear: campaign visits are not irrelevant, nor would we be better off without them.

In fact, campaign visits can be effective—and would be even more so if one candidate overreacted to this evidence and quit the campaign trail entirely. Candidates also risk raising questions about their fitness or commitment to the presidency by scaling back or eliminating in-person appearances, as Biden’s 2020 campaign illustrates.

More important, campaign visits are good for democracy—even essential to it. As anyone who has attended these events can attest, there is something profound and empowering about witnessing a contestant for the leader of the free world come to your community to ask for your vote. It is perhaps the most literal way in which our leaders solicit the consent of the governed.

What effect does this have on the election’s outcome? Not much, my book suggests. But as a means of engaging citizens in the electoral process—if not you or me directly, then at least our fellow Americans on our behalf—these sacred rituals of democracy do important work.

Christopher J. Devine is associate professor of political science at the University of Dayton and the author of I’m Here to Ask for Your Vote: How Presidential Campaign Visits Influence Voters.