We explore differences in House candidates' campaign agendas across Web sites and televised ads, comparing the size and scope of their online and off-line issue priorities, their patterns of partisan issue ownership and issue trespassing, and the extent of issue convergence with the agendas of their opponents. Our results, based on a sample of 129 candidates in the 2000 election, indicate that Web and ad agendas are similar in a number of ways but that differences do exist across the venues. These differences have important theoretical implications for our understanding of candidate behavior and campaign effects as well as important practical implications for political communication researchers choosing venues for study.
Abbe, O., J. Goodliffe, P. Herrnson, and K. Patterson.2003. “Agenda-setting in Congressional Elections: The Impact of Issues and Campaigns on Voting Behavior.” Political Research Quarterly56(4):419—30.
2.
Baumgartner, F., and B.D. Jones, eds. 2002. Policy Dynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Bimber, B., and R. Davis.2003. Campaigning On-line: The Internet in U.S. Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
Druckman, J.2004. “Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election.” Political Psychology25(4):577—94.
5.
Farnsworth, S., and D. Owen.2004. “Internet Use and the 2000 Presidential Election.” Electoral Studies23:415—29.
6.
Foot, K., and S. Schneider.2002. “Online Action in Campaign 2000: An Exploratory Analysis of the U.S. Political Web Sphere.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media46(2):222—44.
7.
Geer, J.2006. In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Gibson, R., M. Margolis, D. Resnick, and S. Ward.2003. “Election Campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK.” Party Politics9(1):47—75.
9.
Kaplan, N., D.K. Park, and T.N. Ridout.2006. “Dialogue in American Political Campaigns? An Examination of Issue Convergence in Candidate Television Advertising .” American Journal of Political Science50(3):724—36.
10.
Kaufmann, K.2004. “Disaggregating and Reexamining Issue Ownership and Voter Choice.” Polity36(2):283—99.
11.
Margolis, M., and D. Resnick.2000. Politics as Usual:The Cyberspace Revolution . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Nicholson, S.2005. Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elections, and Ballot Propositions . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
Norris, P.2003. “Preaching to the Converted? Pluralism, Participation and Party Websites.” Party Politics9:21—45.
14.
Petrocik, J.1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science40(3):825—50.
15.
Petrocik, J., W. Benoit, and G. Hansen.2004. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952—2000.” Political Science Quarterly118(4):599—626.
16.
Prior, M.2001. “Weighted Content Analysis of Political Advertisements .” Political Communication18(3):335—45.
17.
Rainie, L., M. Cornfield, and J. Horrigan.2005. “The Internet and Campaign 2004 .” Pew Internet & American Life Project Report.
18.
Riker, W.1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
Sellers, P.1998. “Strategy and Background in Congressional Campaigns .” American Political Science Review92:159—71.
20.
Sides, J.2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science36(3):407—36.
21.
Sigelman, L., and E.H. Buell Jr. 2004. “Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960—2000. ” American Journal of Political Science48(4):650—61.
22.
Simon, A.F.2002. The Winning Message. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Spiliotes, C., and L. Vavreck.2002. “Campaign Advertising: Partisan Convergence or Divergence?” Journal of Politics64(2):249-61.
24.
Sulkin, T.2005. Issue Politics in Congress. New York : Cambridge University Press.
25.
Xenos, M., and K. Foot.2005. “Politics as Usual, or Politics Unusual? Position Taking and Dialogue on Campaign Websites in the 2002 U.S. Elections.” Journal of Communication55(1):169—85.
