In this paper, we examine whether the impact of negative advertising on citizens' evaluations of candidates depends on the gender of the candidates. Given common gender stereotypes, we expect negative campaigning aimed at women candidates will affect citizens differently than negative campaigning against male candidates. The results of our study, derived from a survey experiment conducted on a nationwide sample of more than 700 citizens, demonstrate that negative commercials are less effective at depressing evaluations of woman candidates, compared to male candidates. The findings are consistent and strong, across a range of forces that people use to assess competing candidates (i.e., affect and trait evaluations, people's beliefs about issues, anticipated vote choice). The tight control of the experimental design, including randomization of respondents into different conditions that vary in only one way, demonstrates that the gender of the candidate influences people's reactions to different types of negative commercials.

Presidential debates are much more than just 90-minute events. They are followed by media analysis and interpretation, including interviews with experts, the discussion of instant polls, the replaying of highlights, and the commentary of candidates' spokespeople. It is a complicated mix to say the least. We seek to examine these competing influences for the final 2004 presidential debate with a unique and powerful design: a controlled experiment, a public opinion survey, and a content analysis of the debate and the news media's "instant analysis" immediately following the debate. Our findings, for example, suggest that citizens were influenced by the arguments presented directly by the candidates during the debate as well as by the media's instant analyses of the candidates' debate performance. Because we are able to take a closer look at this complicated campaign event, we are able to tell a more compelling and nuanced story about the effects of debates than previously told.

We demonstrate that the news media's "spin" or analysis following the last presidential debate in 2004 influenced citizens' evaluations of the candidates. The media's "instant analyses" in the twenty-four hours following the debate was decidedly onesided, favoring President Bush more than Senator Kerry. We show that the news media's spin persuaded potential voters to alter their attitudes regarding the competing candidates. We rely on a multimethodological approach, including an experiment with a quasi-experimental component, a public opinion survey, and a content analysis. To examine the media's spin, we conducted a content analysis of news coverage on television, on the Internet, and in newspapers for the twenty-four hours following the final 2004 presidential debate. Second, to examine how citizens reacted to the media's coverage, we relied on a representative public opinion survey conducted immediately following the debate. In addition, we conducted an experiment where certain individuals were exposed to the debate, while others were not, and we tracked these subjects over the course of a week to determine the stability of their attitudes in the midst of intense media coverage.

No abstract

No abstract

When many people think of Arizona politics, images of Barry Goldwater or John McCain come to mind, along with a spirit that is fiercely independent, sometimes unpredictable, and decidedly not averse to controversy or push back from party insiders. Streaks of libertarianism and rugged individualism weaved through most of Arizona's senatorial candidates, dating back to the state's first senators. 1 So, the rarity of an open United States Senate seat in Arizona constitutes a unique opportunity for serious, high-quality candidates. Enter Congresswomen Kyrsten Sinema (D) and Martha McSally (R). In 2018, they battled for an open seat created by Senator Jeff Flake's retirement. Flake gave an impassioned farewell speech lamenting the state of Republican politics with President Trump at the helm. 2 During the Republican primary, McSally toed the "Trumpian" party line and was successful; she won the primary handily as Republican PACs poured money into the race. 3 However, the general election would

No abstract

No abstract