Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:39:30.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptions of Candidate Character Traits and the Presidential Vote in 2004

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2008

Charles Prysby
Charles Prysby
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many media pundits explained Bush's victory in the 2004 presidential election as due in large part to an advantage that he held over Kerry in personal characteristics or character traits, at least as perceived by the voters. By these accounts, Kerry was seen by many voters as aloof, humorless, vacillating, and indecisive. In contrast, Bush was viewed as warm, authentic, and a strong leader. Such interpretations were expressed by a wide range of journalists. For example, New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks (2004a) claimed that if “… the Democrats had nominated Dick Gephardt, this election wouldn't be close, but character is destiny, and Kerry's could be debilitating …” Also in the New York Times, Kate Zernike and John Broder (2004) found that in interviews around the country taken the day after the election, “the voices of voters … fairly shouted that the outcome was … about a fundamental question of character.” Leadership was the trait most commonly cited as one of Bush's strengths. As one voter whom they interviewed put it, “People say George Bush is a cowboy … People say he shoots quick … sometimes you have to do that, you have to be decisive. Kerry never projected that.” Kerry was also faulted for being dull and uninspiring. Brooks (New York Times 2004b) felt that Kerry talked “like a manager or an engineer.” Others felt that Kerry lacked the personal warmth or charm that would allow voters to relate to him. Klein (2006, 221) felt that Kerry “… remained aloof, a distant figure, a politician in all the worst senses of the word.” Perhaps the worst insult was hurled by one of my students, who called Kerry “too professorial.”Author's note: I appreciate the comments provided by two of my colleagues, David Holian and Greg McAvoy.

Type
FEATURES
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 115 - 122
Copyright
© 2008 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rhode. 2006. Change and Continuity in the 2004 Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
American National Election Studies. 2004. The 2004 National Election Study [dataset]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. www.electionstudies.org.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “The Impact of Candidate Traits in American Presidential Elections.” In Leaders' Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, ed. Anthony King. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, David. 2004a. “Sense and Sensibility.” New York Times, Oct. 4.Google Scholar
Brooks, David. 2004b. “Hope and Frustration.” New York Times, Nov. 2.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Ceaser, James W., and Andrew E. Busch. 2005. Red Over Blue: The 2004 Elections and American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Conley, Patricia. 2005. “The Presidential Race of 2004: Strategy, Outcome, and Mandate.” In A Defining Moment: The Presidential Election of 2004, ed. William Crotty. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela J. 1981. “Political Cues and the Perception of Candidates.” American Politics Quarterly 9 (4): 427–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Kathryn M., and James G. Gimple. 1997. “Candidate Character vs. the Economy in the 1992 Election.” Political Behavior 19 (3): 177–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1996. “Understanding Trait Inferences in Candidate Images.” In Vol. 5 of Research in Micropolitics: Rethinking Rationality, ed. Michael X. Delli Carpini, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Y. Shapiro. Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1999. “Bringing the Candidate into Models of Candidate Evaluation.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 700–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Gallup Organization. 2004. “October Wave 4 Survey.” Gallup Poll Archive. Available at www.brain.gallup.com (February 12, 2007).Google Scholar
Gant, Michael M. 1983. “Citizens' Evaluations of 1980 Presidential Candidates: Influence of Campaign Strategies.” American Politics Quarterly 11 (3): 327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2002. “Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 627–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Danny. 2005. “Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 908–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeter, Scott. 1987. “The Illusion of Intimacy: Television and the Role of Candidate Personal Qualities in Voter Choice.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (3): 344–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Patrick J., and Tom W. Rice. 1988. “Presidential Prenomination Preferences and Candidate Evaluations.” American Political Science Review 82 (4): 1,309–19.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1986. “Presidential Character Revisited.” In Political Cognition, ed. Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., Mark D. Peters, Robert P. Abelson, and Susan T. Fiske. 1980. “Presidential Prototypes.” Political Behavior 2 (4): 315–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Joe. 2006. Politics Lost. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gregory B. 1982. “Political Attitudes during an Election Year.” American Political Science Review 76 (3): 538–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, James A. 1990. “Changing Electoral Contexts and Changing Candidate Images During the 1984 Presidential Campaign.” American Politics Quarterly 18 (2): 123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, Wilson Carey. 2005. “The Meaning of the Election: Ownership and Citizenship in American Life.” In The Elections of 2004, ed. Michael Nelson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Martin P. Wattenberg, and Oksana Malanchuk. 1986. “Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates.” American Political Science Review 80 (2): 521–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and J. Merrill Shanks. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nimmo, Dan, and Robert L. Savage. 1976. Candidates and Their Images. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.Google Scholar
Pomper, Gerald M. 2005. “The Presidential Election: The Ills of American Politics After 9/11.” In The Elections of 2004, ed. Michael Nelson. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., John H. Aldrich, Eugene Borgida, and Wendy M. Rahn. 1990. “Candidate Appraisal and Human Nature: Man and Superman in the 1984 Election.” Political Psychology 11 (3): 459–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Evan. 2004. Election 2004. New York: Newsweek.Google Scholar
Zernike, Kate, and John M. Broder. 2004. “War? Jobs? No, Character Counted Most to Voters.” New York Time, Nov. 4.Google Scholar