Presidential rhetoric, candidate evaluations, and party identification: Can parties "own" values?

Political Research Quarterly

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 419-433

  Doherty, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Campaigns; Issue ownership; Priming; Rhetoric; Values

Indexed keywords

EID: 54449084315     PISSN: 10659129     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1065912907308095     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar. 1994. Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 335-57.
2. Bowers, Jake. 1995. NES pilot study efforts to measure values and predispositions. National Election Studies (NES) Technical Report Series. ftp://ftp.electionstudies.org/ftp/nes/bibliography/documents/nes010136.pdf.
3. Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14: 63-82.
4. Campbell, James E. 1983. The electoral consequences of issue ambiguity: An examination of the presidential candidates' issue positions from 1968 to 1980. Political Behavior 5: 277-91.
5. Cohen, Adam. 2004. Why the Democrats need to stop thinking about elephants. New York Times, November 15.
6. Converse, Philip E. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and discontents, ed. David E. Apter. London: Collier-Macmillan.
7. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
8. Feldman, Stanley. 1988. Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science 32: 416-40.
9. Feldman, Stanley, and John Zaller. 1992. The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science 36: 268-307.
10. Finkel, Steven E. 1993. Reexamining the "minimal effects" model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics 55: 1-21.
11. Franklin, Charles H., and John E. Jackson. 1983. The dynamics of party identification. American Political Science Review 77: 957-73.
12. Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1993. Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23: 409-51.
13. Goren, Paul. 2005. Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science 49: 881-96.
14. Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2002. Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15. Holbrook, Thomas M. 1999. Political learning from presidential debates. Political Behavior 21: 67-89.
16. Howell, Susan E. 1981. Short term forces and changing partisanship. Political Behavior 3: 163-80.
17. Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
18. Jaccard, James, and Robert Turrisi. 2003. Interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Jacoby, William G. 1998. Report on values and predispositions items for the 1998 National Election Study. National Election Studies (NES) Technical Report Series. ftp://ftp.electionstudies.org/ftp/nes/bibliography/documents/ nes010752.pdf.
20. Johnston, Richard. 1992. Party identification and campaign dynamics. Political Behavior 14: 311-31.
21. Mendelsohn, Matthew. 1996. The media and interpersonal communications: The priming of issues, leaders, and party identification. Journal of Politics 58: 112-25.
22. Miller, Arthur H., Martin P. Wattenberg, and Oksana Malanchuck. 1986. Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review 80: 521-40.
23. Peffley, Mark A., and Jon Hurwitz. 1985. A hierarchical model of attitude constraint. American Journal of Political Science 29: 871-90.
24. Peterson, David A. M. 2004. Certainty or accessibility: Attitude strength in candidate evaluations. American Journal of Political Science 48: 513-20.
25. Petrocik, John R. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40: 825-50.
26. Petrocik, John R., William L. Benoit, and Glenn J. Hansen. 2003. Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952-2000. Political Science Quarterly 118: 599-626.
27. Pollock, Philip H., III, Stuart A. Lilie, and M. Elliot Vittes. 1993. Hard issues, core values and vertical constraint: The case of nuclear power. British Journal of Political Science 23: 29-50.
28. Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
30. Shaw, Daron R. 1999. A study of presidential campaign event effects from 1952 to 1992. Journal of Politics 61: 387-422.
31. Sigelman, Lee, and Emmett H. Buell. 2004. Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in U.S. presidential campaigns, 1960-2000. American Journal of Political Science 48: 650-61.
32. Simon, Herbert. 1985. Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review 79: 293-304.
33. Zaller, John. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinions. New York: Cambridge University Press.