Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T04:47:23.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dynamics of Campaign Issue Agendas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Kevin K. Banda
Kevin K. Banda*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
*
Kevin K. Banda, University of Missouri, 113 Professional Building, Columbia, MO 65211-6030, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that candidates shape their issue agendas—the sets of related issues on which they focus—in part in response to the issue agendas of their opponents and that competitive campaigns stimulate candidates to respond to one another at higher rates. I test my theory of candidate interaction using weekly advertising data at the media market level from 146 statewide elections—54 gubernatorial and 92 U.S. Senate contests—from six election years and across all 50 states. I find that candidates systematically respond to one another's issue agendas and do so to a greater extent in competitive elections than in noncompetitive elections.

Keywords

campaignselectionsagenda convergenceissue ownershipcandidate behaviorpolitical advertisingpolitical communication
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 446 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2013

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

Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar, Shanto. 1994. “Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58(Autumn): 335–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banda, Kevin K. 2010. “Sending a Clear Message: How Citizens Respond to Candidates' Messages.” Presented at the North Carolina Political Science Association Annual Conference, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Banda, Kevin K. 2013. “The Dynamics of Issue Convergence.” Presented at the Southern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2006. “Priming and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns.” In Capturing Campaign Effects, eds. Brady, Henry E. and Johnston, Richard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 78–112.Google Scholar
Basinger, Scott J., and Lavine, Howard. 2005. “Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 99:169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bewley, R. A. 1979. “The Direct Estimation of the Equilibrium Response in a Linear Dynamic Model.” Economics Letters 3(4): 357–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., Johnston, Richard, and Sides, John. 2006. “The Study of Political Campaigns.” In Capturing Campaign Dynamics, eds. Brady, Henry E. and Johnston, Richard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1–26.Google Scholar
Brasher, Holly. 2003. “Capitalizing on Contention: Issue Agendas in U.S. Senate Campaigns.” Political Communication 20(4): 453–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Farlie, Dennis J.. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M. 2000. Campaign Dynamics: The Race for Governor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., Jackson, Robert A., Stewart, Melissa, and Nelson, James P.. 2011. “Strategic Candidates, Campaign Dynamics, and Campaign Advertising in Gubernatorial Races.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11(September): 269–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damore, David F. 2004. “The Dyanamics of Issue Ownership in Presidential Campaigns.” Political Research Quarterly 57(3): 391–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boef, Suzanna, and Keele, Luke. 2008. “Taking Time Seriously.” American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Egan, Patrick J. 2013. Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H. 1991. “Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perception of U.S. Senate Incumbents.” American Political Science Review 858:1193–214.Google Scholar
Franz, Michael M., and Ridout, Travis N.. 2007. “Does Political Advertising Persuade?” Political Behavior 29(December): 465–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geer, John G. 2006. In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1993. “Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science 23:409–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Shields, Todd G.. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holian, David B. 2004. “He's Stealing My Issues! Clinton's Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership.” Political Behavior 26(June): 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Simon, Adam F.. 2000. “New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects.” Annual Review of Psychology 51:149–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jerit, Jennifer. 2008. “Issue Framing and Engagement: Rhetorical Strategy in Public Policy Debates.” Political Behavior 30(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Kenney, Patrick J.. 1999. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Kenney, Patrick J.. 2004. No Holds Barred: Negativity in United States Senate Campaigns. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Noah, Park, David K., and Ridout, Travis N.. 2006. “Dialogue in American Political Campaigns? An Examination of Issue Convergence in Candidate Television Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science 50(July): 724–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1998a. “Communication and Opinion.” Annual Review of Political Science 1:167–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1998b. “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics.” In Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th ed., eds. D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey. London: Oxford University Press, 778–867.Google Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108:480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lau, Richard R., and Pomper, Gerald M.. 2004. Negative Campaigning: An Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2009. “Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis.” American Journal of Political Science 53(October): 821–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Gary, and Schofield, Norman. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 97:245–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Kent Jennings, M.. 1986. Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Supporters. New York: SAGE.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C., Sniderman, Paul M., and Brody, Richard A., eds. 1996. Political Persuasion and Attitude Change. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, David A. M. 2004. “Certainty or Accessibility: Attitude Strength in Candidate Evaluations.” American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 513–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, David A. M. 2009. “Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants.” American Journal of Political Science 53(April): 445–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40(August): 825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, John R., Benoit, William L., and Hansen, Glenn J.. 2003. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000.” Political Science Quarterly 118(4): 599–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1990. “Heresthetic and Rhetoric in the Spatial Model.” In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, eds. Enelow, James M. and Hinich, Melvin J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, Patrick J. 1998. “Strategy and Background in Congressional Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 92(1): 159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sides, John. 2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science 36:407–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sides, John. 2007. “The Consequences of Campaign Agendas.” American Politics Research 35(July): 465–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Buell, Emmet H.. 2004. “Avoidance or Enagagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000.” American Journal of Political Science 48(October): 650–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Adam F. 2002. The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaperdas, Stergios, and Grofman, Bernard. 1995. “Modeling Negative Campaigning.” American Political Science Review 89(1): 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiliotes, Constantine J., and Vavreck, Lynn. 2002. “Campaign Advertising: Partisan Convergence or Divergence?” Journal of Politics 64(February): 249–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50(July): 755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theilmann, John, and Wilhite, Allen. 1998. “Campaign Tactics and the Decision to Attack.” Journal of Politics 60(4): 1050–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walgrave, Stefaan, Lefevere, Jonas, and Tresch, Anke. 2012. “The Associative Dimension of Issue Ownership.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76(Winter): 771–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windett, Jason Harold. 2011. “Gendered Campaign Strategies in U.S. Gubernatorial Elections: Women Running as Women ... Sometimes.”Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.” American Political Science Review 77:142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, and Erikson, Robert S.. 2002. “The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 64(4): 969–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar