| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
The Consequences of Campaign AgendasGeorge Washington University, Washington, DC, jsides{at}gwu.edu Theories of candidate agendas suggest two potentially conflicting imperatives for candidates: focus on issues that their party "owns" or on issues that are salient to the public. The implication is that candidates may ultimately lose votes for ignoring either or both of these imperatives. However, no systematic test of either theory exists. This article provides a fuller test using candidate advertising data from the 1998, 2000, and 2002 House and Senate elections and finds that neither theory is supported. Candidates did not consistently emphasize owned or salient issues in any of these elections. Moreover, candidate agendas have little effect on electoral outcomes. These results highlight the need for more nuanced theories of candidate strategy.
Key Words: political campaigns issue ownership U.S. House elections U.S. Senate elections campaign agendas campaign strategy
American Politics Research, Vol. 35, No. 4,
465-488 (2007) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||
