The Ideal Candidate Revisited

Abstract

The view of image as a transaction between all that a candidate says and does and the way in which voters compare that behavior to their personal vision of what a candidate should be inspires at least three questions important to campaign communication. First, although the ability or power of the media to affect the success or failure of political campaigns and candidates is popularly believed and has been documented by researchers, do the views of individual members of the media regarding the ideal qualities required of president candidates differ significantly from those of voters? Second, do the characteristics or criteria of the “ideal candidate” ascribed by the media and/or the electorate vary from election to election? And finally, do the evaluative dimensions of “idealness” differ by party affiliation, age, or gender? The answers to these questions were determined from the results of a survey of 388 professional journalists covering and 734 citizens attending rallies in New Hampshire during the presidential primaries of 1988, 1992, and 1996.

Cracked and Shattered Ceilings: Gender, Race, Religion, Age, and the Ideal Candidate

“…Table 2 presents the mean ratings for all candidate characteristics measured in the six campaigns. As in previous investigations, mean importance ratings of candidate characteristics did not shift dramatically across campaigns (Trent et al, 1993;Trent et al, 1997;Trent et al, 2001;Trent et al, 2005). Those characteristics considered extremely important in 1988 (e.g., talk about the nation's problems and honest) tended to be those characteristics considered very important in the campaigns that followed, including 2008.…”

“…Are the characteristics or dimensions of idealness consistent across presidential election cycles? For the most part, previous research evidences not only the stability of attributes but also the stability of specific characteristics (no matter who the actual contenders and candidates were from the 1988 campaign through the 2004 campaign; Miller, Wattenberg, & Malanchuk, 1986;Trent et al, 1993;Trent et al, 1997;Trent et al, 2001;Trent et al, 2005;Trent & Friedenberg, 2008).…”

The Consistent Attributes of the Ideal Presidential Candidate in an Increasingly Divided Electorate

“…Table 2 presents the mean importance ratings for all candidate characteristics measured across all eight campaigns. As noted in Trent et al (1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2013), importance ratings do not swing markedly across campaigns. Those characteristics considered important (or unimportant) in 1988 were still considered important (or unimportant) in 2016.…”

“…This study was designed to extend surveys of voters taken during the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 New Hampshire primaries into 2016. In accordance with the earlier works, the purpose of the 2016 study was to determine those attributes voters considered most important for presidential hopefuls to possess and compare them with earlier New Hampshire primary campaigns (Trent, Mongeau, Trent, Kendall, & Cushing, 1993; Trent, Short-Thompson, Mongeau, & Metzler, 2013; Trent, Short-Thompson, Mongeau, Nusz, & Trent, 2001; Trent, Short-Thompson, Mongeau, Metzler, Erickson, & Trent, 2010; Trent, Short-Thompson, Mongeau, Metzler, & Trent, 2005; Trent, Trent, Mongeau, & Short-Thompson, 1997). Thus, the first research question, did voters’ images about what was important and what was unimportant about candidate attributes change?…”

“…Are the characteristics or dimensions of idealness consistent across presidential elections? Previous research evidences not only the “sameness” of attributes but also the stability of specific characteristics, no matter who the contenders have been from 1988 through 2012 (Miller, Wattenberg, & Malanchuk, 1986; Trent et al, 1993; Trent et al, 1997; Trent et al, 2001; Trent et al, 2005; Trent et al, 2010; Trent et al, 2013; Trent & Friedenberg, 2008).…”