Theories of candidate agendas suggest two potentially conflicting imperatives for candidates: focus on issues that their party “owns” or on issues that are salient to the public. The implication is that candidates may ultimately lose votes for ignoring either or both of these imperatives. However, no systematic test of either theory exists. This article provides a fuller test using candidate advertising data from the 1998, 2000, and 2002 House and Senate elections and finds that neither theory is supported. Candidates did not consistently emphasize owned or salient issues in any of these elections. Moreover, candidate agendas have little effect on electoral outcomes. These results highlight the need for more nuanced theories of candidate strategy.
Abbe, O.G., Goodliffe, J., Herrnson, P.S., & Patterson, K.D. (2003). Agenda setting in congressional elections: The impact of issues and campaigns on voting behavior. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 419-430.
2.
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.
3.
Bartels, L.M. (1997). Specification uncertainty and model averaging. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 641-674.
4.
Berelson, B.R., Lazarsfeld, P.F., & McPhee, W.N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
6.
Brasher, H. (2003). Capitalizing on contention: Issue agendas in U.S. senate campaigns. Political Communication, pp. 453-471.
7.
Budge, I., & Farlie, D.J. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London : Allen & Unwin.
8.
Carsey, T.M. (2000). Campaign dynamics: The race for governor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
Damore, D.F. (2004). The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 391-397.
10.
Damore, D.F. (2005). Issue convergence in presidential campaigns. Political Behavior, 27, 71-97.
11.
Freedman, P., Franz, M., & Goldstein, K. (2004). Campaign advertising and democratic citizenship. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 723-741.
12.
Freedman, P., & Goldstein, K. (1999). Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1189-1208.
13.
Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2000). New evidence for new arguments: Money and advertising in the 1996 senate elections. Journal of Politics, 62, 1087-1108.
14.
Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Campaign advertising and voter turnout: New evidence for a stimulation effect. Journal of Politics, 64, 721-740.
15.
Gronke, P. (2000). The electorate, the campaign, and the office: A unified approach to senate and house elections. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
16.
Hammond, T.H., & Humes, B.D. (1993). The spatial model and elections. In B. Grofman (Ed.), Information, participation, and choice (pp. 141-159). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17.
Holian, D.B. (2004). He's stealing my issues! Clinton's crime rhetoric and the dynamics of issue ownership. Journal of Politics, 26, 95-124.
18.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Iyengar, S., & Valentino, N.A. (2000). Who says what? Source credibility as a mediator of campaign advertising. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 108-129). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Jacobson, G.C. (2004). The politics of congressional elections. New York: PearsonLongman.
21.
Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H.E., & Crête, J. (1992). Letting the people decide: Dynamics of a Canadian election. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
Kahn, K.F., & Kenney, P.J. (1999). The spectacle of U.S. senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
Lubenow, G.C. (1995). California votes—The 1994 governor's race: An inside look at the candidates and their campaigns by the people who managed them. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
24.
Norpoth, H., & Buchanan, B. (1992). Wanted: The education president: Issue trespassing by political candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 87-99.
25.
Petrocik, J.R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850.
26.
Petrocik, J.R., Benoit, W.L., & Hansen, G.J. (2003). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952-2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 599-626.
27.
Prior, M. (2001). Weighted content analysis of political advertisements. Political Communication, 18, 335-345.
28.
Ridout, T., Kaplan, N., & Park, D. (2006). Dialogue in American political campaigns? An examination of issue engagement in candidate television advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 724-736.
29.
Riker, W. (1983). Political theory: The art of heresthetics. In A. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 47-67). Washington, DC : American Political Science Association.
30.
Sellers, P. (1998). Strategy and background in congressional campaigns. American Political Science Review, 92, 159-171.
31.
Shaw, D.R. (1999). The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988-96. American Political Science Review, 93, 345-361.
32.
Sides, J. (2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 407-436.
33.
Sigelman, L., & Buell, Jr., E.H. (2004). Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in U.S. presidential campaigns, 1960-2000. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 650-661.
34.
Simon, A.F. (2002). The winning message: Candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Spiliotes, C.J., & Vavreck, L. (2002). Campaign advertising: Partisan convergence or divergence? Journal of Politics, 64, 249-261.
36.
Sulkin, T., & Evans, J. (2006). Dynamics of diffusion. AmericanPolitics Research, 34, 505-534.
37.
Zaller, J. (2001). Monica Lewinsky and the mainsprings of American politics. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 252-278). New York: Cambridge University Press.
