The authors investigate the central role that education policy played in the 2000 presidential election. They conducted content analyses of campaign messages to examine empirically the specific positions George W Bush and Al Gore staked out during the campaign and the strategies they employed to win over the electorate. They then explore the effects campaigns have on presidents' policy agendas and governance. They examine Bush's first 100 days in office, comparing his campaign proposals with the education reform package he sent to Congress. The authors find evidence that the candidates used education policy strategically by appealing to voters 'preferences in a manner consistent with the strengths of their parties, by tailoring their messages for particular audiences, and by employing mixed messages. Furthermore, the authors find that the education policy agenda of President Bush was ostensibly the same as the one he communicated to the electorate during the campaign.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramson, P. R.
, Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (1991). Change and continuity in the 1988 elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
2.
Alvarez, R. M.
(1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
Arterton, F. C.
(1993). Campaign '92: Strategies and tactics of the candidates. In G. Pomper (Ed.), The election of 1992: Reports and interpretations (pp. 74-109). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
4.
Bush, G. W.
(2001). No child left behind. Retrieved January 29, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/
5.
Campbell, A.
, Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voterNew York: John Wiley.
6.
Carmines, E. G.
, & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
7.
Carsey, T. M.
(2000). Campaign dynamics: The race for governorAnn Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
CBS News/New York Times. (1999, November 4-7). Retrieved July 2001 from http://nationaljournal.com/members/polltrack/1999/issues/99mostimportant.htm#
9.
Chong, D.
(1996). Creating common frames of reference of reference on political issues. In D. Mutz, P. Sniderman, & R. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 195-224). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10.
Davis, O. A.
, Hinich, M. J., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review, 64, 426-448.
11.
Dewar, H.
(2001, June 15). Senate passes major revamp of education, fight over funding gap looms. Washington Post, p. A01.
12.
Downs, A.
(1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
13.
Erikson, R. S.
, & Romero, D. W. (1990). Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote. American Political Science Review, 84, 1103-1126.
14.
Fletcher, M. A.
(2001, February 2). Education has center stage under Bush. Washington Post p. A21.
15.
Frank, S.
, Wagner, S., & Hammes, M. K. (2000). SCSU survey: Statewide survey of Minnesota adults. St. Cloud, MN: St. Cloud State University.
16.
Gallup Organization
. (2000). Most important problem. Retrieved in July from http://www.gallup.com/poll/indicators/Indmip.asp
17.
Hershey, M. R.
(1992). The constructed explanation: Interpreting election results in the 1984 presidential race. Journal of Politics, 54, 943-976.
18.
Holbrook, T.
(1991). Presidential elections in space and time. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 91-109.
19.
Jacobs, L. R.
, & Shapiro, R. Y. (1994). Issues, candidate image, and priming: The use of private polls in Kennedy's 1960 presidential campaign. American Political Science Review, 88, 527-540.
20.
Just, M. R.
, Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M., & West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Key, V. O.
(1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936-1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Kingdon, J.
(1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
23.
Mann, T. E.
, & Ornstein, N. J. (1983). Sending a message: Voters and Congress in 1982. In Mann & Ornstein (Eds.), The American elections of 1982. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
24.
Mann, T. E.
, & Ornstein, N. J. (2000). After the campaign, what? Governance questions for the 2000 election. Brookings Review, 18, 44-48.
25.
McKee, R. J. (2001). State variation in the structures of ideological attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago.
26.
Mezzacappa, D.
(2001). Redefining the federal role in education. Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved January 24, 2001, from http://inq.philly.com/...er/2001/01/24/front-page/PLAN24.htm
27.
Moe, T. M.
(2001). Schools, vouchers, and the American public. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28.
Nie, N. H.
, Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1979). The changing American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Office of the Press Secretary
. (2001). Radio address by the president to the nation. Retrieved January 27, 2001, from http:H/whitehouse.gov/news/radio/20010127.html
30.
Page, B. I.
(1978). Choices and echoes in presidential elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Petrocik, J.
(1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850.
32.
RePass, D. E.
(1971). Issue salience and party choice. American Political Science Review, 65, 389-400.
33.
Robelen, E. W.
(2001). Democrats, GOP agree in principle on federal role. Education Week. Retrieved January 31, 20001, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=20bush.h20
34.
Rose, L. C.
, & Gallup, A. M. (1999, September). The 31st annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan.
35.
Shanks, J. M.
, & Miller, W. E. (1990). Policy direction and performance evaluations: Complementary explanations of the Reagan elections. British Journal of Political Science, 20, 143-235.
36.
Smith, E.R.A.N.
(1980). The levels of conceptualization: False measures of ideological sophistication. American Political Science Review, 74, 685-696.
37.
Stimson, J. A.
, MacKuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89, 543-565.
38.
Sullivan, J. L.
, Piereson, J. E., & Marcus, G. E. (1978). Ideological constraint in the mass public: A methodological critique of some new findings. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 233-249.
39.
TNS Intersearch. (1999, March 11-14). Retrieved in July 2001 from http:H/nationaljoumal.com/members/polltrack/1999/toda ys/hp990316.htm#
40.
Trent, J. S.
, & Friedenberg, R. V. (2000). Political campaign communications: Principles and practices (4th ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
