This study incorporates the issue-ownership concept into the aggregate presidential approval literature. A content analysis of media coverage from the Reagan through Clinton administrations of four party-owned issues—Social Security or Medicare, environmental protection, national defense, and size of government—demonstrates that when the agenda is dominated by issues on which the president’s party enjoys credibility, approval increases, controlling for the typical economic and event variables. Similarly, increased coverage of issues owned by the opposition party leads to decreased approval, all things equal. Thus, when the media primes a party-owned issue, the public responds by evaluating the president consistent with his credibility on the issue. These relationships are robust across the typical functional forms used to model approval.
Abramowitz, A. I. (1985). Economic conditions, presidential popularity, and voting behavior in midterm congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 47, 31-43.
2.
Alvarez, R. M., & Katz, J. N. (2000). Aggregation and dynamics of survey responses: The case of presidential approval. Unpublished manuscript, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.
3.
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 335-357.
4.
Bartels, L. M. (1996, August-September). Politicians and the press: Who leads, who follows? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
5.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Bond, J. R., & Fleisher, R. (1990). The president in the legislative arena. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Brace, P., & Hinckley, B. (1992). Follow the leader: Opinion polls and the modern presidents. New York: Basic Books.
8.
Brody, R. A. (1991). Assessing the president: The media, elite opinion, and public support. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
Canes-Wrone, B., & de Marchi, S. (2002). Presidential approval and legislative success. Journal of Politics, 64, 491-509.
10.
Carmines, E. G., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1990). Incentives, opportunities, and the logic of public opinion in American political representation. In J. H. Kuklinski & J. A. Ferejohn (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 240-268). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
11.
Cohen, J. E. (2005). News that doesn’t matter. In G. C. Edwards, III (Ed.), Readings in presidential politics (pp. 235-259). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
12.
Damore, D. F. (2004). The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 391-397.
13.
Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Edwards, G. C., III. (1989). At the margins: Presidential leadership of Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
Edwards, G. C., III. (2000). Campaigning is not governing: Bill Clinton’s rhetorical presidency. In C. Campbell & B. Rockman (Eds.), The Clinton legacy (pp. 33-47). New York: Chatham House.
16.
Edwards, G. C., III. (2003). On deaf ears: The limits of the bully pulpit. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
Edwards, G. C., III, Mitchell, R., & Welch, R. (1995). Explaining presidential approval: The importance of issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 108-134.
18.
Edwards, G. C., III, & Wood, B. D. (1999). Who influences whom? The president, congress, and the media. American Political Science Review, 93, 327-344.
19.
Epstein, L., & Segal, J. A. (2000). Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 66-83.
20.
Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 908-923.
21.
Hibbs, D. A., Rivers, R. D., & Vasilatos, N. (1982). On the demand for economic outcomes: Macroeconomic performance and political support in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Journal of Politics, 44, 426-462.
22.
Holian, D. B. (2004). He’s stealing my issues! Clinton’s crime rhetoric and the dynamics of issue ownership. Political Behavior, 26, 95-124.
23.
Kernell, S. J. (1977). Presidential popularity and negative voting: An alternative explanation of the midterm congressional decline of the president’s party. American Political Science Review, 71, 44-66.
24.
Kernell, S. J. (1997). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
25.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policy. New York: HarperCollins.
26.
Kramer, G. H. (1971). Short-term fluctuations in U.S. voting behavior. American Political Science Review, 65, 131-143.
27.
Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497-512.
28.
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?Journal of Econometrics, 54, 159-178.
29.
Lanoue, D. J. (1987). Economic prosperity and presidential popularity: Sorting out the effects. Western Political Quarterly, 40, 237-245.
30.
Lanoue, D. J. (1988). From Camelot to the Teflon president: Economics and presidential popularity since 1960. New York: Greenwood.
31.
MacKuen, M. B. (1983). Political drama, economic conditions, and the dynamics of presidential popularity. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 165-192.
32.
Mason, J. (2005, April 26). Social security tour loses steam; Bush succeeds in pointing out the problem, but voters don’t buy the fix. Houston Chronicle, p. A10-A10.
33.
Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 301-315.
34.
Miroff, B. (1982). Monopolizing the public space: The president as a problem for democratic politics. In T. Cronin (Ed.), Rethinking the presidency (pp. 218-232). Boston: Little, Brown.
35.
Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: John Wiley.
36.
Mueller, J. E. (1994). Policy and opinion in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Nadeau, R., Niemi, R. G., Fan, D. P., & Amato, T. (1999). Elite economic forecasts, economic views, mass economic judgments, and presidential approval. Journal of Politics, 61, 109-135.
38.
Neustadt, R. E. (1960). Presidential power. New York: John Wiley.
39.
Newman, B. (2002). Bill Clinton’s approval ratings: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 781-804.
40.
Ostrom, C. W., Jr., & Simon, D. M. (1985). Promise and performance: A dynamic model of presidential popularity. American Political Science Review, 79, 334-358.
41.
Ostrom, C. W., Jr., & Smith, R. M. (1992). Error correction, attitude persistence, and executive rewards and punishments: A behavioral model of presidential approval. Political Analysis, 4, 127-183.
42.
Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850.
43.
Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 382-391.
44.
Ragsdale, L. (1984). The politics of presidential speechmaking, 1949-1980. American Political Science Review, 78, 971-984.
45.
Ragsdale, L. (1987). Presidential speechmaking and the public audience: Individual presidents and group attitudes. Journal of Politics, 49, 704-736.
46.
Ragsdale, L. (1996). Vital statistics on the presidency. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
47.
Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496.
48.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
50.
Rivers, D., & Rose, N. L. (1985). Passing the president’s program: Public opinion and presidential influence in Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 183-196.
51.
Sears, D. O., & Whitney, R. E. (1973). Political persuasion. Morristown, NJ: General Learning.
52.
Sellers, P. J. (1998). Strategy and background in congressional campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 92, 159-171.
53.
Sniderman, P. M. (1993). The new look in public opinion research. In A. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline II (pp. 219-246). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
54.
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Tufte, E. R. (1975). Determinants of the outcomes of midterm congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 69, 812-826.
56.
Weisman, J. (2005, March 15). Skepticism of Bush’s social security plan is growing; Polling and interviews find concerns across age groups. Washington Post, p. A1-A1.
57.
Wildavsky, A. (1966). The two presidencies. Trans-action, 4, 7-14.
58.
Wood, B. D., & Peake, J. S. (1998). The dynamics of foreign policy agenda setting. American Political Science Review, 92, 173-184.
