Danny Hayes

When Gender and Party Collide: Stereotyping in Candidate Trait Attribution

Research has shown that voters are willing to stereotype candidates on the basis of their gender, which can sometimes pose obstacles and sometimes prove advantageous for female politicians. But the literature is uncertain about how candidate gender interacts with candidate party affiliation to shape voters perceptions. In this article, I draw on political psychology, the women and politics literature, and recent work on partisan “trait ownership” to suggest that the application of gender stereotypes will be limited by the salience of partisan stereotypes. I use nationally representative survey data and a content analysis of news coverage from the 2006 U.S. Senate elections to test the argument. Focusing on voter evaluations of candidate traits, I find that party stereotypes are more powerful than gender stereotypes, and that assessments of candidate attributes can be affected by news coverage when candidates are portrayed in ways that challenge traditional partisan images. The results suggest that gender stereotyping is limited by the relevance of party stereotypes, and that as the Republican and Democratic parties continue to polarize at the elite level, the importance of partisan stereotyping is likely to increase.

Whose Views Made the News? Media Coverage and the March to War in Iraq

Criticism of the news medias performance in the months before the 2003 Iraq War has been profuse. Scholars, commentators, and journalists themselves have argued that the media aided the Bush administration in its march to war by failing to air a wide-ranging debate that offered analysis and commentary from diverse perspectives. As a result, critics say, the public was denied the opportunity to weigh the claims of those arguing both for and against military action in Iraq. We report the results of a systematic analysis of every ABC, CBS, and NBC Iraq-related evening news story—1,434 in all—in the 8 months before the invasion (August 1, 2002, through March 19, 2003). We find that news coverage conformed in some ways to the conventional wisdom: Bush administration officials were the most frequently quoted sources, the voices of anti-war groups and opposition Democrats were barely audible, and the overall thrust of coverage favored a pro-war perspective. But while domestic dissent on the war was minimal, opposition from abroad—in particular, from Iraq and officials from countries such as France, who argued for a diplomatic solution to the standoff—was commonly reported on the networks. Our findings suggest that media researchers should further examine the inclusion of non-U.S. views on high-profile foreign policy debates, and they also raise important questions about how the news filters the communications of political actors and refracts—rather than merely reflects—the contours of debate.

Party Reputations, Journalistic Expectations: How Issue Ownership Influences Election News

I argue that the issue-handling reputations that underlie the theory of “issue ownership” affect the favorability of news coverage toward U.S. presidential candidates. A large-scale content analysis of newspaper coverage from the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections shows that candidates are covered more positively when the news focuses on issues their party “owns” than on “opposition” issues. Democrats benefit particularly from news about social welfare topics. Republicans, meanwhile, receive the most favorable coverage in defense and tax stories. The differences are modest, but consistent, across the 3 election years. The findings suggest that candidates have an additional incentive to focus on owned issues and that the news media play a role in perpetuating issue ownership.

A Non-Gendered Lens? Media, Voters, and Female Candidates in Contemporary Congressional Elections

Much research in the study of U.S. politics has argued that female candidates for elected office are treated differently—and often worse—than male candidates in the press and by the public. Although these patterns do not doom women to electoral failure, they raise a formidable series of obstacles that often complicate women’s path to elective office, slowing the move toward gender parity in representation. Broad changes to the American political landscape, as well as methodological limitations of previous work, however, suggest the need for an updated assessment. We rely on a detailed content analysis of local newspaper coverage from nearly 350 U.S. House districts and nationally representative survey data from the 2010 midterms to provide a comprehensive evaluation of whether women experience a more hostile campaign environment than do men. We find that candidate sex does not affect journalists’ coverage of, or voters’ attitudes toward, the women and men running for office in their districts. Rather, reporters’ portrayals and citizens’ assessments of candidates stem primarily from partisanship, ideology, and incumbency, not the sex of the candidate. Although our results differ from much of the existing literature, we regard them as a valuable point of departure for answering pressing questions about gender and representation in contemporary politics, both in an American and comparative context.

Does the Messenger Matter? Candidate-Media Agenda Convergence and Its Effects on Voter Issue Salience

Though research has shown that candidates and the media can influence the importance voters ascribe to political issues, little work has sought to test the interactive agenda-setting effects of each—in particular, to determine whether the ability of candidates to set the publics agenda depends on the medias willingness to reflect their issue emphases. Using an experiment conducted during the early stages of the 2006 Texas gubernatorial election, the author shows that candidate attempts to influence voter issue salience are most effective when the media focus on the same topics. The findings suggest the value for candidates of enlisting the news media in helping to pass their messages along and serve as a point of departure for more work on the influence of candidate-media agenda convergence.

Toward a One-Party South?

Most observers now consider the American South a two-party region, with Democrats and Republicans competing vigorously for political office. In this article, we raise the possibility that the South has begun a transformation into a one-party region dominated by the GOP. Three factors tip the scales in the partys favor: the ideological congruence between the Republican Party and the regions electorate, the Republican trend among the regions younger voters, and the incumbency advantage accrued by current Republican officeholders. Using a vast array of longitudinal data from the South, we provide evidence that speaks to the daunting challenges facing the Democratic Party in the South. We also address the results in the Souths 2006 midterm elections. The findings suggest that as the United States most reliably Republican region continues to change, Democrats may have an exceedingly difficult time winning statewide races.

Trait Voting in U.S. Senate Elections

Assessments of candidates’ personal attributes are known to affect vote choice in presidential elections, but little work has explored trait perceptions and trait voting in congressional contests. In this article, I examine the role of candidate traits in U.S. Senate campaigns, drawing on unique survey data from the 2006 midterms. I find that voters’ evaluations of candidate qualities are less influenced by party stereotypes than in presidential elections and are strongly related to whether a candidate is an incumbent. And just as in campaigns for the White House, trait perceptions affect vote choice. But sitting Senators hold trait advantages that incumbent presidents do not necessarily receive, which makes leadership a particularly influential attribute in Senate races. In addition, trait voting is not contingent on campaign intensity and is strongest among the least politically aware citizens. In general, the results provide evidence for the applicability of presidential trait theories to congressional elections but show that incumbency and political awareness condition their effects in Senate contests.

The Dynamics of Agenda Convergence and the Paradox of Competitiveness in Presidential Campaigns

The mass media’s representation of campaign discourse influences whether voters have the opportunity to scrutinize the candidates’ issue priorities and policy proposals. But it is not clear whether candidate and media issue emphases are more or less similar at an election’s most consequential moments—when it is competitive. In a study of the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, the author finds that as the polls narrow, the media are less likely to reflect candidate discourse. Paradoxically, voters are deprived of an accurate representation of candidate dialogue when they need it most, with media behavior making it difficult for citizens to cast informed ballots in close contests. The results also show that whether the media serve as a conduit for, or filter of, candidate messages depends on a variety of factors, especially electoral context.

As Local News Goes, So Goes Citizen Engagement: Media, Knowledge, and Participation in US House Elections

We propose a two-stage process to explain the relationship between the local news environment and citizen engagement. Our original content analysis of newspaper coverage in every US House district during the 2010 midterms reveals that districts with uncompetitive races and those served by large-circulation outlets see significantly less, and less substantive, coverage than hotly contested districts and those served by smaller outlets. We then merge the news data with survey data from the 2010 CCES and find that a diminished news environment depresses engagement. Citizens exposed to a lower volume of coverage are less able to evaluate their member of Congress, less likely to express opinions about the House candidates in their districts, and less likely to vote. This is true for people regardless of levels of political awareness, indicating that the deleterious consequences of a decline in local coverage are widespread, not restricted to the least attentive citizens.

A Matter of Distinction Candidate Polarization and Information Processing in Election Campaigns

Because Republican and Democratic elites have polarized in recent decades, American voters increasingly face choices between candidates who hold divergent policy positions. Such a development has potential implications for the way voters process information during campaigns and choose between candidates on election day. Drawing on research in political psychology and using a nationally representative survey-experiment, we argue and find that levels of candidate polarization—the convergence or divergence of candidates’ issue positions—affect voter information consumption, recall of campaign information, and the balance of on-line and memory-based processing employed in the vote decision. In showing that voters faced with more similar candidates rely more heavily on memory-based processing, we provide further support for hybrid models of political information processing and suggest that candidate polarization has consequences for voter attitude strength and resistance to persuasion.