Scholars have long suggested that presidential elections can result in dramatic changes in the political landscape (Carmines & Stimson 1989) and produce significantly higher levels of political participation (McDonald & Popkin 2001). As a result much attention has been paid to the strategies employed by candidates (Lau & Pomper 2004; Brader 2006) and the effects of those tactics on the public (Ansolabehere et al. 1994, 1995, 1999). Yet, comparatively little attention has been directed toward explaining the issue content of the campaign. We are offered volumes of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the candidates are in complete control of which issues are addressed with slogans like "it's the economy, stupid!" (The War Room 1993) or "Change we can believe in" (Jamieson 2009). But these accounts do not explain what happens beyond their immediate contexts and offer little toward a broader theory of campaign agenda-setting. one is still left with several questions: What do the patterns of issue attention of modern presidential campaigns look like? Is issue attention by candidates marked with incremental changes, implying that they are in complete control of what issues are addressed? Or, does candidate attention exhibit patterns of stability followed by radical changes, indicating that the candidates' attention is sensitive to outside influence? And perhaps most importantly, who, if anyone, is able to affect the candidates' attention to issues? Their opponents? The mass media? Or the voting public who they are courting?
In this project, the investigator addresses the questions stated above using a dynamic framework to track the candidates' attention to issues over time through the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential campaigns. Drawing upon previous work by agenda-setting scholars, the investigator suggests that the candidates? attention to issues will follow Baumgartner and Jones' (1993, 2005) theory of punctuated equilibria (that attention will be marked with radical changes) and that issue attention is susceptible to outside influence. These claims are evaluated using descriptive distributional analysis of the patterns of change in the candidates issue attention over the course of three campaigns. The investigator then examines which issues receive attention by the candidates, the mainstream media, and the public to evaluate the degree to which attention by one actor can affect attention by the others.
This research is important for several reasons. First, it will provide theoretical and empirical contributions to our understanding of the dynamics of presidential campaigns, agenda-setting, and inter-actor relations in the government. Second, evidence indicating that candidates' respective agendas follow patterns of stability and punctuation similar to those found in other studies of agenda-setting will further our understanding of how issues reach the forefront of the campaign. Third and finally, this examination of the outside influences on the candidates' respective agendas will help explain whether the candidates are in complete control of the issue content of the campaign or if they are responsive to the demands of the mass media and the public.
This study also has several broader impacts that are embodied in the new datasets the investigator will make publicly available for future scholarly research. These data will offer insight into the dynamics of presidential campaigns and agendas, but also provide the foundation for empirical examinations of the linkages between campaigns and public policy. Further, these data will assist in furthering scholarship on government responsiveness and connections between public policy and public opinion. Lastly, this project also offers the potential for several undergraduate political scientists to receive training and experiences in advanced research practices, data collection, automated coding, and empirical analysis.
Imagine you are a candidate for president. You have managed to secure your party's nomination and the spotlight is on you. You have a vibrant agenda filled with ideas and policies that you promise to the American people. But there is a dilemma: What issues do you discuss? How do you choose which issues will receive your attention? How do you divvy up your attention across those issues? Do you take cues from your opponent? How do the media play in? Should you be responsive to public opinion? As one can imagine, presidential candidates face a significant number of challenges on the campaign trail, but perhaps one of the most important, is what they talk about. Yet, scholarly attention in this area is lacking, leaving us with a variety of competing theories that all lead to different expectations for how candidates decide their issue agendas and how they distribute their attention across those issues over the course of the campaign. Among the most prominent work on agenda-setting in campaigns are the Issue Avoidance and Issue Convergence theories. The Issue Avoidance theory posits that candidates choose to emphasize the issues on which they are favored, but that they avoid those issues where their opponents have an advantage. Issue Convergence theory argues the opposite; suggesting candidates will direct attention to their opponents’ key issues in an effort to erode their support. Both theories, however, neglect an important point – candidate attention is a finite commodity limited by both the public and the campaigns. In my dissertation I explore the questions posed above and propose a "Double-Bottleneck" theory of candidate attention under which candidates must account for their limited attention. The result of these restrictions is that candidates choose a small subset of "key" issues to both emphasize their strengths while presenting their campaign in a way the public can follow. As a result, candidate attention to their most important issues is heavily controlled by the candidates and is largely insulated from outside influence by the media and the public. However, the remaining "mid-tier" and low importance issues remain largely unaddressed by the campaigns, positioning the candidates in a more reactive role and opening the door for outside influence. To test this theory I construct several new, unique datasets from the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns that measure attention from the candidates, media, public, and campaign contributors across the population of possible issues. These data provide an in-depth picture of which issues receive attention from the candidates and the dynamics of how their levels of attention change over time. My findings offer support for my Double-Bottleneck theory, suggesting candidates’ patterns of attention to the top issues in 2004 and 2008 are only influenced by their opponents, with the exception of major external events like the 2008 financial crisis. Attention to mid-tier and low importance issues is found to be consistently more susceptible to influence by the media and other actors. Thus, I conclude the way candidates distribute their attention is open to influence on lower level issues but not in a consistent pattern that suggest overt acts of agenda-setting.
