Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Researchers have long investigated the conditions that promote the unambiguous communication of issues in political campaigns; however, previous research has been largely theoretic or has only tested ambiguous communication on a limited range of issues. We address these gaps, making three principal contributions. First, we provide an extensive empirical test of ambiguous communication, scoring every issue addressed on website “issues pages” from House candidates in 2014. Second, we accomplish this by using a supervised learning content analysis procedure that allows us to score a large volume of text based on a smaller subset of hand-coded text. This allows us to not only examine whether candidates comment on an issue but also the clarity of their message. Third, this article provides empirical support for how candidates’ communication strategies are shaped not only by the candidates’ personal characteristics but also the characteristics of the district. We find that district heterogeneity is an important predictor of ambiguous communication. Evidence also indicates that issue ownership and ideological extremity play a decisive role in the decision to “go vague.”

Keywords

political communication ambiguity online campaigns congressional elections websites

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramowitz

A. I.

(2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Albertson

B. L.

(2015). Dog-whistle politics: Multivocal communication and religious appeals. Political Behavior, 37, 3–26.

Alesina

Cukierman

(1990). The politics of ambiguity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 829–850.

Alvarez

M. R.

(1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Aragones

Postlewaite

(2002). Ambiguity in election games. Review of Economic Design, 7, 233–255.

Bailey

Brady

D. W.

(1998). Heterogeneity and representation: The Senate and free trade. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 524–544.

Berry

Kamsties

M. E.

Krieger

M. M.

(2003). From contract drafting to software specification: Linguistic sources of ambiguity. Retrieved from https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/∼dberry/handbook/ambiguityHandbook.pdf

Bonica

. (2016). Database on ideology, money in politics, and elections (Public version 2.0) [Computer file]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved from https://data.stanford.edu/dime

Campbell

J. E.

(1983). The electoral consequences of issue ambiguity: An examination of the presidential candidates’ issue positions from 1968 to 1980. Political Behavior, 5, 277–291.

10.

Carmines

E. G.

Stimson

J. A.

(1980). The two faces of issue voting. The American Political Science Review, 74, 78–91.

11.

Chappell

H. W.

(1994). Campaign advertising and political ambiguity. Public Choice, 79, 281–303.

12.

Downs

(1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.

13.

Druckman

J. N.

Hennessy

C. L.

Kifer

Parkin

(2010). Issue engagement on congressional candidate web sites, 2002–2006. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 3–23.

14.

Druckman

J. N.

Jacobs

L. R.

Ostermeier

(2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. The Journal of Politics, 66, 1205–1227.

15.

Druckman

J. N.

Kifer

Parkin

(2009). Campaign communications in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103, 343–366.

16.

Druckman

J. N.

Kifer

Parkin

(2014). U.S. congressional campaign communications in an internet age. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 24, 20–44.

17.

Druckman

J. N.

Kifer

Parkin

(2017). Resisting the opportunity for change: How congressional campaign insiders viewed and used the web in 2016. Social Science Computer Review, 36, 1–14.

18.

Egan

P. J.

(2013). Partisan priorities: How issue ownership drives and distorts American politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Ensley

M. J.

Tofias

M. W.

Marchi

(2009). District complexity as an advantage in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 990–1005.

20.

Fenno

R. F.

(1978). Home style: House members in their districts. New York: Longman.

21.

Geer

(2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Gerber

Lewis

J. B.

(2004). Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and political representation. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 1364–1383.

23.

Glazer

(1990). The strategy of candidate ambiguity. The American Political Science Review, 84, 237–241.

24.

Hillygus

S. D.

Shields

T. G.

(2009). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Krupnikov

Ryan

J. B.

(2017). Choice vs. action: Candidate ambiguity and voter decision making. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 12, 479–505.

26.

Laver

Benoit

Garry

(2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. The American Political Science Review, 97, 311–331.

27.

Levendusky

(2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

28.

Lim

E. T.

(2002). Five trends in presidential rhetoric: An analysis of rhetoric from George Washington to Bill Clinton. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 32, 328–348.

29.

López

I. H.

(2014). Dog whistle politics: How coded racial appeals have reinvented racism and wrecked the middle class. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

30.

Mansbridge

(2003). Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review, 97, 515–528.

31.

Milita

Ryan

J. B.

Simas

E. N.

(2014). Nothing to hide, nowhere to run, or nothing to lose: Candidate position-taking in congressional elections. Political Behavior, 36, 427–449.

32.

Milita

Simas

Ryan

Krupnikov

(2017). The effects of ambiguous rhetoric in congressional elections. Electoral Studies, 46, 48–63.

33.

Monogan

J. E.

Doctor

A. C.

(2017). Immigration politics and partisan realignment: California, Texas, and the 1994 election. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 17, 3–23.

34.

Overby

L. M.

Barth

(2006). Radio advertising in American political campaigns: The persistence, importance, and effects of narrowcasting. American Politics Research, 34, 451–478.

35.

Page

(1978). Choices and echoes in presidential elections: Rational man and electoral democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

36.

Parsneau

Chapp

C. B.

(2017). Partisan extremity in the 2014 midterm elections: How primaries and incumbency influenced polarized position-taking on campaign websites. In Sisco

T. S.

Lucas

J. C.

Galdieri

C. J.

(Eds.), Political communication & strategy: Consequences of the 2014 midterm elections (pp. 175–186). Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.

37.

Petrocik

J. R.

(1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. The American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850.

38.

Shepsle

K. A.

(1972). The strategy of ambiguity: Uncertainty and electoral competition. The American Political Science Review, 66, 555–568.

39.

Somer-Topcu

(2015). Everything to everyone: The electoral consequences of the broad appeal strategy in Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 841–854.

40.

Sullivan

J. L.

(1973). Political correlates of social, economic, and religious diversity in the American states. The Journal of Politics, 35, 70–84.

41.

Tausanovitch

Warshaw

(2013). Measuring constituent policy preferences in congress, state legislatures, and cities. The Journal of Politics, 75, 330–342.

42.

Tetlock

P. E.

(1981). Pre- to postelection shifts in presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 207–212.

43.

Tomz

Van Houweling

R. P.

(2009). The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 103, 83–98.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.36 MB

Going Vague: Ambiguity and Avoidance in Online Political Messaging

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material