If candidates sometimes seek to distinguish themselves from their parties and are ambiguous about their policy positions, to what extent do the policy platforms of parties affect individuals’ perceptions of presidential candidate positions? Using data from the American National Election Study and the Comparative Manifesto Project from 1972 to 2000, we show that citizens are able to use party platforms in their assessments of presidential candidates. We also demonstrate that an individual’s level of education is important in the process of linking Republican Party platforms to Republican presidential candidates. Our findings have important implications for the role of parties in presidential elections.
BudgeIanKlingemannHans-DieterVolkensAndreaTannenbaumEricBaraJudith. 2001. Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
CampbellAngusConversePhilipMillerWarrenStokesDonald. 1960. The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
CarminesEdwardStimsonJames. 1980. The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review74: 78–91.
10.
CarminesEdwardStimsonJames. 1989. Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
ConoverPamela JohnstonFeldmanStanley. 1982. Projection and perceptions of candidates. Western Political Quarterly35: 228–44.
12.
Delli CarpiniMichaelKeeterScott. 1996. What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Row.
14.
EriksonRobertMackuenMichaelStimsonJames. 2002. The macro polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
FranklinCharles. 1991. Eschewing obfuscation? Campaign and the perception of U.S. Senate incumbents. The American Political Science Review85: 1193–214.
16.
GraberDoris. 1984. Processing the news. New York: Longman.
17.
HetheringtonMarc. 2001. Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review95: 619–31.
18.
JonesBradford S.WesterlandChad. Apri 2006. Order matters (?): Alternatives to conventional practices for ordinal categorical response variables. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
19.
KeeterScottZuckinCliff. 1983. Uninformed choice. New York: Praeger.
20.
KleinnijenhuisJanPenningsPaul. 2001. Measurement of party positions on the basis of party programmes, media coverage and voter perceptions. In Estimating the policy position of political actors, ed. LaverMichael, 162–82. London: Routledge.
21.
KochJeffrey. 2002. Gender stereotypes and citizens’ impressions of House candidates’ ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 46: 453–62.
22.
LevyGilat. 2004. A model of political parties. Journal of Economic Theory, 115: 250–77.
MairPeter. 2001. Searching for the positions of political actors: A review of approaches and a critical evaluation of expert surveys. In Estimating the policy position of political actors, ed. LaverMichael, 10–30. London: Routledge.
25.
McDonaldMichael D.MendesSilvia M.KimMyunghee. 2007. Cross-temporal and cross-national comparisons of party left–right positions. Electoral Studies26: 62–75.
26.
MeguidBonnie. 2005. Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99: 347–60.
27.
MoonWoojin. 2004. Party activists, campaign resources and candidate position taking: Theory, tests and applications. British Journal of Political Science34: 611–33.
28.
PageBenjamin. 1976. A theory of political ambiguity. American Political Science Review70: 742–52.
29.
PageBenjamin. 1978. Choices and echoes in presidential elections. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
30.
PelizzoRicardo. 2003. Party positions or party direction? An analysis of party manifesto data. West European Politics26 (April): 67–89.
PopkinSamuel. 1994. The reasoning voter. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
33.
RahnWendy. 1993. The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science37: 472–496.
34.
ShepsleKenneth. 1972. The strategy of ambiguity: Uncertainty in electoral competition. American Political Science Review66: 555–68.
35.
SnyderJamesTingMichael. 2002. An informational rationale for political parties. American Journal of Political Science46: 90–110.
36.
TavitsMargit. 2007. Principle vs. pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science51: 151–65.
37.
van der BrugWouter. 1999. Voters’ perceptions and party dynamics. Party Politics5: 147–69.
38.
VolkensAndrea. 2007. Strengths and weaknesses of approaches to measuring policy positions of parties. Electoral Studies26: 108–20.
39.
WilliamsR.2006. Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. The Stata Journal6: 58–82.
40.
WoonJonathanPopeJeremy C.2008. Made in Congress? Testing the electoral implications of party ideological brand names. Journal of Politics70: 823–836.
41.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The nature and origin of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
