This effort examines the dynamics of the agenda-setting process in presidential campaigns by assessing the conditions that motivate candidates to discuss issues associated with their opponent’s party. The article’s argument contends that occurrences of issue trespassing are a function of the context in which a campaign is occurring and factors stemming from the campaign process. The hypotheses are tested against data collected from all available campaign advertisements produced by major party candidates competing in the 1976 through 1996 presidential elections. The results of the logit analysis indicate that candidates’ decisions to address issues owned by their opponent’s party are a function of their competitive standing, their partisanship, the importance of an issue to the electorate, and the tone of their campaign messages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, John H., and John D. Griffin. 2003. “The Presidency and the Campaign: Creating Voter Priorities in the 2000 Election.” In Michael Nelson, ed., The Presidency and the Political System, 7th ed.Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly.
2.
Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
3.
Carmines, Edward G., and James H. Kuklinski. 1990. “Incentives, Opportunities, and the Logic of Public Opinion in American Political Representation.” In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski, eds., Information and Democratic Processes, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Chong, Dennis. 1996. “Creating Common Frames of Reference on Political Issues.” In Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody, eds., Political Persuasion and Attitude Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1989. “Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes.”American Journal of Political Science33: 912-940.
6.
Damore, David F.2002. “Candidate Strategy and the Decision to Go Negative.”Political Research Quarterly55: 669-686.
7.
Damore, David F.2003. “Issue Response in Presidential Campaigns.”University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Typescript.
8.
Damore, David F.2004. “Using Campaign Advertisements to Assess Campaign Processes.”Journal of Political Marketing3: 39-59.
9.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
10.
Goldman, Peter, Thomas M. DeFrank, Mark Miller, Andrew Murr, and Tom Mathews. 1994. Quest for the Presidency. College Station: Texas A&M University.
11.
Hamill, Ruth C., Milton Lodge, and Frederick Blake. 1985. “The Breadth, Depth, and Utility of Class, Partisan, and Ideological Schemata.”American Journal of Political Science29: 850-870.
12.
Jacobs, Lawrence, and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1994. “Issues, Candidate Image, and Priming: The Use of Private Polls in Kennedy’s 1960 Presidential Campaign.”American Political Science Review8: 527-540.
13.
Jacobson, Gary C.1990. The Electoral Origins of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
14.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Patrick J. Kenney. 1999. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
Krosnick, Jon A., and Donald R. Kinder. 1990. “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming.”American Political Science Review84: 497-512.
16.
Lupia, Arthur, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Norpoth, Helmut, and Bruce Buchanan. 1992. “Wanted: The Education President, Issue Trespassing by Political Campaigns.”Public Opinion Quarterly56: 87-99.
18.
Petrocik, John R.1991. “Divided Government: Is it All in the Campaigns?” In Gary W. Cox and Samuel Kernell, eds. The Politics of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
19.
Petrocik, John R.1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.”American Journal of Political Science40: 825-850.
20.
Petrocik, John R., Willliam L. Benoit, and Glenn J. Hansen. 2003-2004. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952-2000.”Political Science Quarterly118: 599-626.
21.
Rahn, Wendy M.1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.”American Journal of Political Science37: 472-496.
22.
Riker, William H.1993. “The Specification of Issues.” In William H. Riker, ed., Agenda Formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
23.
Shaw, Daren R.1999a. “The Methods behind the Madness: Presidential Electoral College Strategies, 1988-1996.”Journal of Politics61: 893-913.
24.
Shaw, Daron R.1999b. “The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988-96.”American Political Science Review93: 345-362.
25.
Simon, Adam F.2002. The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Smith, Tom W.1985. “The Polls: America’s Most Important Problems, Part I: National and International.”Public Opinion Quarterly49: 264-274.
27.
Stimson, James A.1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings, 2nd ed.Boulder, CO: Westview.
28.
Stimson, James A., Michael B. MacKuen, and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.”Amerian Political Science Review89: 543-565.
