Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: Campaigning for the Agenda: Agenda-Setting in the 2000, 2004, and 2008 Presidential Campaigns

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Scholars have long suggested that presidential elections can result in dramatic changes in the political landscape (Carmines & Stimson 1989) and produce significantly higher levels of political participation (McDonald & Popkin 2001). As a result much attention has been paid to the strategies employed by candidates (Lau & Pomper 2004; Brader 2006) and the effects of those tactics on the public (Ansolabehere et al. 1994, 1995, 1999). Yet, comparatively little attention has been directed toward explaining the issue content of the campaign. We are offered volumes of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the candidates are in complete control of which issues are addressed with slogans like "it's the economy, stupid!" (The War Room 1993) or "Change we can believe in" (Jamieson 2009). But these accounts do not explain what happens beyond their immediate contexts and offer little toward a broader theory of campaign agenda-setting. one is still left with several questions: What do the patterns of issue attention of modern presidential campaigns look like? Is issue attention by candidates marked with incremental changes, implying that they are in complete control of what issues are addressed? Or, does candidate attention exhibit patterns of stability followed by radical changes, indicating that the candidates' attention is sensitive to outside influence? And perhaps most importantly, who, if anyone, is able to affect the candidates' attention to issues? Their opponents? The mass media? Or the voting public who they are courting?In this project, the investigator addresses the questions stated above using a dynamic framework to track the candidates' attention to issues over time through the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential campaigns. Drawing upon previous work by agenda-setting scholars, the investigator suggests that the candidates? attention to issues will follow Baumgartner and Jones' (1993, 2005) theory of punctuated equilibria (that attention will be marked with radical changes) and that issue attention is susceptible to outside influence. These claims are evaluated using descriptive distributional analysis of the patterns of change in the candidates issue attention over the course of three campaigns. The investigator then examines which issues receive attention by the candidates, the mainstream media, and the public to evaluate the degree to which attention by one actor can affect attention by the others. This research is important for several reasons. First, it will provide theoretical and empirical contributions to our understanding of the dynamics of presidential campaigns, agenda-setting, and inter-actor relations in the government. Second, evidence indicating that candidates' respective agendas follow patterns of stability and punctuation similar to those found in other studies of agenda-setting will further our understanding of how issues reach the forefront of the campaign. Third and finally, this examination of the outside influences on the candidates' respective agendas will help explain whether the candidates are in complete control of the issue content of the campaign or if they are responsive to the demands of the mass media and the public.This study also has several broader impacts that are embodied in the new datasets the investigator will make publicly available for future scholarly research. These data will offer insight into the dynamics of presidential campaigns and agendas, but also provide the foundation for empirical examinations of the linkages between campaigns and public policy. Further, these data will assist in furthering scholarship on government responsiveness and connections between public policy and public opinion. Lastly, this project also offers the potential for several undergraduate political scientists to receive training and experiences in advanced research practices, data collection, automated coding, and empirical analysis.