Who Evaluates a Presidential Candidate by Using Non-Policy Campaign Messages
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6340343 |
|---|---|
| Authors | M Abrajano (0000-0002-4818-3470, New York University, corresponding author), Marisa A Abrajano (New York University) |
| Year | 2005 |
| Volume | 58 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 55-67 |
| Publication date | 2005-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Political Research Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1065-9129 • E-ISSN: 1938-274X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591290505800105 |
| OpenAlex | W1986824930 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 15 |
| References cited | 29 |
This article tests the hypothesis that low-education voters are more likely to evaluate a candidate using personalistic or non-policy campaign messages than are more educated voters. The Latino electorate in the U.S. presents an ideal case study, given that both Presidential candidates in the 2000 election directed personalistic campaign messages toward them. Latinos with low-levels of education should be the most likely to evaluate a candidate using personalistic campaign cues since processing and understanding these messages require little in stored political information. Analysis of self-reported responses from the Latino Voter Survey of 2000 indicates that low-education Latinos are more likely than are high-education Latinos to use non-policy cues when evaluating a candidate. This finding implies that vote choice is structured differently for Latinos with varying levels of education. To test this implication and to confirm the finding from the self-reported responses, I estimate a model of Latino vote choice for the 2000 Presidential election. Probit analysis shows that high-education Latinos are indeed more likely to use factors that are informationally demanding, such as candidates’ issue positions and ideology than are low-education Latinos
Econometrics · Economics · Ideology · Ordered probit · Political Education · Political science · Politics · Presidential election · Presidential system · Probit model · Public economics · Test (biology · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Media Influence and Politics · Psychology · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology
Hispanics’ Perceptions of Candidates & Voting in the 2018 Texas Senate Election
Por Quién Votará? Experimental evidence about language, ethnicity and vote choice (among Republicans)
A Policy‐Oriented Electorate
Race, legislative speech, and symbolic representation in Congress
Begin Again
Issue Voting and Crime in Gubernatorial Elections
Who's on the Bench? The Impact of Latino Descriptive Representation on U.S. Supreme Court Approval Among Latinos and Anglos
Revue des revues
Selectively (il)liberal
Desperately Seeking Sonia? Latino Heterogeneity and Geographic Variation in Web Searches for Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Social Policy and Public Opinion
Political Knowledge and Issue Voting Among the Latino Electorate
Demographic Diversity and District-Level Party Systems
Constituency Diversity, District Magnitude and Voter Co-ordination
Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid
Air wars
What Americans know about politics and why it matters
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Political Persuasion and Attitude Change
Reconsidering the Rational Public
An economic theory of democracy
The Reasoning Voter
Reasoning and Choice
The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics
Information and Elections
Constituent errors in assessing their Senators
The Responsible Electorate
The Foundations of Latino Voter Partisanship
Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy
Rational Learning and Partisan Attitudes
Uninformed Votes
Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World
Economics, Entitlements, and Social Issues
The Two Faces of Issue Voting
Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections
Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias
Information Effects in Collective Preferences
A Directional Theory of Issue Voting
| Unique citing works | 15 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,71 |
| Citation span | 2005 - 2025 (21) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 15 |