Rhetorical Convergence and Issue Knowledge in the 2000 Presidential Election

Presidential Studies Quarterly

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 145-163

  Waldman, Paul ^a   Jamieson, Kathleen Hall ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

campaign rhetoric; political advertising; political knowledge; presidential elections

Indexed keywords

EID: 85050840215     PISSN: 03604918     EISSN: 17415705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2003.tb00020.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alvarez, R. Michael. 1998. Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2. Berke, Richard, and Janet Elder. 2001. Bush loses favor despite tax cut and overseas trip. The New York Times, June 21, A1.
3. Brady, Henry, and Paul Sniderman. 1985. Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review 79: 1061–78.
4. Brooks, David. 2000. Report from Philly: Why the GOP is playing nice. Newsweek, August 3, 10.
5. Campbell, James. 1983. Ambiguity in the issue positions of presidential candidates: A causal analysis. American Journal of Political Science 27: 284–93.
6. Cantril, Albert, and Susan Davis Cantril. 1999. Reading mixed signals: Ambivalence in American public opinion about government. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
7. Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1989. Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science 33: 912–40.
8. Dalager, Jon. 1996. Voters, issues and elections: Are the candidates' messages getting through? Journal of Politics 58: 486–515.
9. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
10. Gilens, Martin. 2001. Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review 95: 379–96.
11. Green, Donald, and Ian Shapiro. 1994. Pathologies of rational choice theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12. Hart, Roderick. 2000. Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald Kinder. 1987. News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Jacobs, Lawrence, and Robert Shapiro. 2000. Politicians don't pander: Political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Paul Waldman. 1997. Mapping campaign discourse: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist 40: 1133–38.
16. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Paul Waldman. eds. 2001. Electing the president 2000: The insiders' view. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
17. Jarvis, Sharon. 1999. Party style: Partisanship in presidential campaign speeches, 1948-1996. Paper presented at the conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco.
18. King, David. 1997. The polarization of American parties and mistrust of government. In Why people don't trust government, edited by Joseph Nye, Philip D. Zelikow, and David C. King. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Krosnick, John. 1990. Americans' perceptions of presidential candidates: A test of the projection hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues 46: 159–82.
20. Kuklinski, James, Paul J. Quirk, Jennifer Jerit, David Schwieder, and Robert F. Rich. 2000. Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics 62: 790–816.
21. Lichter, S. Robert. 2001. A plague on both parties: Substance and fairness in TV election news. Harvard Journal of Press/Politics 6 (3): 8–30.
22. Lodge, Milton, Marco Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1995. The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 89: 309–26.
23. Norpoth, Helmut, and Bruce Buchanan. 1992. Wanted: The education president. Public Opinion Quarterly 56: 87–99.
24. Page, Benjamin. 1976. The theory of political ambiguity. American Political Science Review 70: 742–52.
25. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2000. Presidential debate clouds voters' choice. Available from www.people-press.org.
26. Project for Excellence in Journalism. 2000. A question of character: How the media have handled the issue and how the public has reacted. Available from www.journalism.org.
27. Shepsle, Kenneth. 1972. The strategy of ambiguity: Uncertainty and electoral competition. American Political Science Review 66: 555–68.
28. Sniderman, Paul Richard Brody, and Philip Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. West, Paul. 2000. For Gore, a battle for green territory. The Baltimore Sun, October 24, A1.