Search

This paper investigates several methodological questions or problems that are involved in the study of the character traits of presidential candidates using the American National Election Studies surveys. Character trait perceptions can be measured in two ways using the ANES data. First, responses to the open-ended candidate like/dislike questions can be used; these questions were asked every year, although the responses for 2008 have yet to be coded and released. Second, closed items that ask respondents how they perceive each major-party candidate on a set of character traits have been asked in each presidential election year from 1980 on. The first question that we address is which method of measuring trait perceptions is superior: the openended like/dislike questions or the closed trait items. We then consider several methodological questions that are involved with the use of the closed trait items. One has to do with the scoring of the items. Another is the use of two versions of the trait items in 2008, each asked of one-half of the sample. A third problem is the use of negatively worded questions for some traits in some years. Finally, the ANES has varied the trait questions over time, which introduces some problems of comparability across years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examines the impact of character trait perception on the U.S. presidential candidates in 2012. It reveals the disadvantage suffered by Mitt Romney on character traits, who was perceived as lacking in integrity and character. It explains the failure of Romney to create a more positive image of himself resulting to the victory of Barack Obama despite Obama's mediocre public approval.

In this research we investigate the substance and tone of mayoral candidates' campaign speech as revealed in television advertisements. Our main empirical focus is on the behavior of minority candidates, who for strategic reasons are expected to deracialize their campaigns in an effort to appeal to white crossover voters. Unlike previous research we compare the speech of minorities and non-minorities alike, both within and across election contexts. We also examine primary and runoff elections with the expectation that candidates' issue speech and tone will differ depending on the phase of the election. We find that in primary elections, black candidates talk significantly more than non-blacks about redistributive issues, and significantly less than non-blacks on the issue of crime. The same is true in runoff contests with regard to redistribution. As for candidates' tone, Hispanic candidates are somewhat less negative than whites, controlling a large number of individual and contextual factors likely to influence candidates' campaigns. We discuss the implications of our findings for the theory of deracialization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analyze the relationship between the relative perceptions of the character traits of the 2008 presidential candidates and the vote. While long-term political predispositions, issue orientations, and retrospective evaluations have generated much scholarly voting behavior research, studies of perceptions of candidate character have been less prevalent. Moreover, given the particularly stark contrasts between the personalities and backgrounds of Barack Obama and John McCain, as reported in the media and portrayed by the campaigns themselves, 2008 provided an especially compelling year to assess these effects. We find that McCain failed to win an overall advantage on traits, which he needed to overcome Obama's many contextual advantages. Moreover, perceptions of candidate character traits had a strong influence on the vote, controlling for other key variables. Leadership and optimism emerged in our analysis as the most important traits in the minds of the voters, but the individual trait perceptions are highly correlated, so our conclusions on this point must be qualified. We further find that while trait perceptions are influenced by other attitudes, especially party identification, they are far from determined by these attitudes, indicating that they play an independent role in the vote decision.Finally, our analysis indicates that the relationship between trait perceptions and the vote cannot be dismissed as mere rationalization of the vote. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our research focuses on the determinants of respondent perceptions of the personal characteristics of presidential candidates and how these influences vary across different parts of the electorate. The paper covers the 1992 through 2004 elections. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Voter perceptions of the personal traits of presidential candidates are widely regarded to be important influences on the vote. Media pundits frequently explain the outcome of presidential elections in terms of the personal appeal of the candidates. While such conclusions may overstate the importance of character, political scientists also believe that candidate personal traits are important. There is general agreement in the voting behavior literature that voter perceptions of the personal qualities of the candidates are important short-term forces that influence voting in presidential elections. In this study, our primary concern is to determine which voters rely more on the personal traits of presidential candidates in deciding how they will cast their ballots. We analyze ANES surveys for the 1992 through 2004 elections. We start with two working hypotheses, which may seem somewhat contradictory. First, we hypothesize that as voters become more politically knowledgeable and sophisticated, they will rely relatively less on their perceptions of the personal traits of the candidates in deciding how to cast their votes. Second, we hypothesize that more exposure to media coverage of the presidential campaign, especially television coverage, will increase the impact of trait perceptions on the vote. Both of these hypotheses are modestly supported by our analysis. In our most critical tests of each hypothesis, we find clear support in two of the four years examined, ambiguous results for one year, and contradictory results for one year. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the effect that perceptions of the personal traits of presidential candidates had on voting in the 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential elections. Perceptions of candidate personal traits are measured by using the closed trait items asked in these years and by using the open-end, like/dislike items about the candidates in each year. We find that trait perceptions have a substantial effect on the vote, that the measures of trait perceptions based on the closed items are superior to the measures based on the open-eneded items, and that there is variation in the importance of particular trait dimensions across time and between Democrats and Republicans. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this research we compare the incidence of candidate attacks in newspaper coverage and television advertising using data from the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral election. Attack data are generated from a content analysis of Los Angeles Times? election stories and candidates? television advertising. In addition to testing hypotheses related to the competitive positioning of candidates, we explore how attacks in each medium affect attacks in the other medium. While competitive positioning is significantly related to television attacks, it has little effect on attacks in newspapers. Prior attacks in the press lead to more attacks in both newspapers and on television. But, the number of prior television attacks significantly reduces the likelihood of future television attacks. What this suggests is that the incidence of attack is, in part, a function of the medium employed. We also find evidence that patterns of attack reflect the nature of the local election system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our experimental design assesses how various types of information on salient and non-salient issues affects individual’s assessment of the president’s handling of the issue. This experiment complements earlier individual cross-sectional and macro-level findings. It is one section of a broader study on how the issue agenda helps to explain presidential approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]