{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017632241813602016, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007556675062972292, 'mean_word_length': 5.411290322580645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Canvasser Affect and Voter Response: Results From National Focus Groups

The experimental literature on voter mobilization establishes the efficacy of canvassing as a tool of voter mobilization. However, the current literature gives scant attention to the question of whether some types of canvassers may be more effective than others. This article takes the first step toward developing a positive theory of effective or ineffective canvassing. Using descriptive, qualitative data from 10 focus groups conducted in 2006, I find that voters have preferences for the types of campaign representatives they want to visit them. The results of these focus groups lay the groundwork for further experimental study and provide guidelines for practitioners instituting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts.