I argue that candidates shape their issue agendas—the sets of related issues on which they focus—in part in response to the issue agendas of their opponents and that competitive campaigns stimulate candidates to respond to one another at higher rates. I test my theory of candidate interaction using weekly advertising data at the media market level from 146 statewide elections—54 gubernatorial and 92 U.S. Senate contests—from six election years and across all 50 states. I find that candidates systematically respond to one another’s issue agendas and do so to a greater extent in competitive elections than in noncompetitive elections.
AlvarezR. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2.
AnsolabehereStephenIyengarShanto. 1994. “Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns.” Public Opinion Quarterly58(Autumn): 335–57.
3.
BandaKevin K.2010. “Sending a Clear Message: How Citizens Respond to Candidates’ Messages.” Presented at the North Carolina Political Science Association Annual Conference, Durham, NC.
4.
BandaKevin K.2013. “The Dynamics of Issue Convergence.” Presented at the Southern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.
5.
BartelsLarry. 2006. “Priming and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns.” In Capturing Campaign Effects, eds. BradyHenry E.JohnstonRichard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 78–112.
6.
BasingerScott J.LavineHoward. 2005. “Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review99:169–84.
7.
BerelsonBernard R.LazarsfeldPaul F.McPheeWilliam N.1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
8.
BewleyR. A.1979. “The Direct Estimation of the Equilibrium Response in a Linear Dynamic Model.” Economics Letters3(4): 357–61.
9.
BradyHenry E.JohnstonRichardSidesJohn. 2006. “The Study of Political Campaigns.” In Capturing Campaign Dynamics, eds. BradyHenry E.JohnstonRichard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1–26.
10.
BrasherHolly. 2003. “Capitalizing on Contention: Issue Agendas in U.S. Senate Campaigns.” Political Communication20(4): 453–71.
11.
BudgeIanFarlieDennis J.1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Unwin Hyman.
12.
CarseyThomas M.2000. Campaign Dynamics: The Race for Governor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13.
CarseyThomas M.JacksonRobert A.StewartMelissaNelsonJames P.2011. “Strategic Candidates, Campaign Dynamics, and Campaign Advertising in Gubernatorial Races.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly11(September): 269–98.
14.
DamoreDavid F.2004. “The Dyanamics of Issue Ownership in Presidential Campaigns.” Political Research Quarterly57(3): 391–97.
15.
De BoefSuzannaKeeleLuke. 2008. “Taking Time Seriously.” American Journal of Political Science52(1): 184–200.
16.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
17.
EganPatrick J.2013. Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
EriksonRobert S.WrightGerald C.McIverJohn P.1993. Statehouse Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
FranklinCharles H.1991. “Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perception of U.S. Senate Incumbents.” American Political Science Review858:1193–214.
20.
FranzMichael M.RidoutTravis N.2007. “Does Political Advertising Persuade?” Political Behavior29(December): 465–91.
21.
GeerJohn G.2006. In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
22.
GelmanAndrewKingGary. 1993. “Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science23:409–51.
23.
HillygusD. SunshineShieldsTodd G.2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
24.
HolianDavid B.2004. “He’s Stealing My Issues! Clinton’s Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership.” Political Behavior26(June): 95–124.
25.
IyengarShantoSimonAdam F.2000. “New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects.” Annual Review of Psychology51:149–69.
26.
JeritJennifer. 2008. “Issue Framing and Engagement: Rhetorical Strategy in Public Policy Debates.” Political Behavior30(1): 1–24.
27.
KahnKim FridkinKenneyPatrick J.1999. The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
28.
KahnKim FridkinKenneyPatrick J.2004. No Holds Barred: Negativity in United States Senate Campaigns. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
29.
KaplanNoahParkDavid K.RidoutTravis N.2006. “Dialogue in American Political Campaigns? An Examination of Issue Convergence in Candidate Television Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science50(July): 724–36.
30.
KinderDonald R.1998a. “Communication and Opinion.” Annual Review of Political Science1:167–97.
31.
KinderDonald R.1998b. “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics.” In Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th ed., eds. GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG.London: Oxford University Press, 778–867.
32.
KundaZiva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin108:480–98.
33.
LauRichard R.PomperGerald M.2004. Negative Campaigning: An Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
34.
LenzGabriel S.2009. “Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis.” American Journal of Political Science53(October): 821–37.
35.
MillerGarySchofieldNorman. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review97:245–60.
36.
MillerWarren E.JenningsM. Kent. 1986. Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Supporters. New York: SAGE.
37.
MutzDiana C.SnidermanPaul M.BrodyRichard A., eds. 1996. Political Persuasion and Attitude Change. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
38.
PetersonDavid A. M.2004. “Certainty or Accessibility: Attitude Strength in Candidate Evaluations.” American Journal of Political Science48(3): 513–20.
39.
PetersonDavid A. M.2009. “Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants.” American Journal of Political Science53(April): 445–60.
40.
PetrocikJohn R.1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science40(August): 825–50.
41.
PetrocikJohn R.BenoitWilliam L.HansenGlenn J.2003. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000.” Political Science Quarterly118(4): 599–626.
42.
RikerWilliam H.1990. “Heresthetic and Rhetoric in the Spatial Model.” In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, eds. EnelowJames M.HinichMelvin J.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 46–65.
43.
SellersPatrick J.1998. “Strategy and Background in Congressional Campaigns.” American Political Science Review92(1): 159–71.
44.
SidesJohn. 2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.” British Journal of Political Science36:407–36.
45.
SidesJohn. 2007. “The Consequences of Campaign Agendas.” American Politics Research35(July): 465–88.
46.
SigelmanLeeBuellEmmet H.2004. “Avoidance or Enagagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000.” American Journal of Political Science48(October): 650–61.
47.
SimonAdam F.2002. The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
SkaperdasStergiosGrofmanBernard. 1995. “Modeling Negative Campaigning.” American Political Science Review89(1): 49–61.
49.
SpiliotesConstantine J.VavreckLynn. 2002. “Campaign Advertising: Partisan Convergence or Divergence?” Journal of Politics64(February): 249–61.
50.
StimsonJames A.2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
SulkinTracy. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science50(July): 755–69.
53.
TheilmannJohnWilhiteAllen. 1998. “Campaign Tactics and the Decision to Attack.” Journal of Politics60(4): 1050–62.
54.
VavreckLynn. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
55.
WalgraveStefaanLefevereJonasTreschAnke. 2012. “The Associative Dimension of Issue Ownership.” Public Opinion Quarterly76(Winter): 771–82.
56.
WindettJason Harold. 2011. “Gendered Campaign Strategies in U.S. Gubernatorial Elections: Women Running as Women . . . Sometimes.”
57.
WittmanDonald. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.” American Political Science Review77:142–57.
58.
WlezienChristopherEriksonRobert S.2002. “The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns.” Journal of Politics64(4): 969–93.
59.
WooldridgeJeffrey M.2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
