Shifting Policy Priorities for Presidential Candidates Between the Primary and General Election
dc.contributor.advisor | O'Brian, Neil | |
dc.contributor.advisor | Markowitz, Dave | |
dc.contributor.advisor | Shoop, Casey | |
dc.contributor.author | Anderson, Conall | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-08-18T15:48:10Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-08-18T15:48:10Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
dc.description | 35 pages | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Presidential candidates are often suspected of becoming more moderate in the general election to appeal to swing voters, despite having shown more extreme views in the primary election. This study attempts to find the prevalence of that effect by comparing the prioritization of policy areas between presidential primary and general election debates to observe if candidates change based on how contentious a policy is. I create an original data set by doing a content analysis of 59 debates across three presidential elections. I create a measure of contentiousness based on polling data for consistent issues across 2012, 2016, and 2020 and find the frequency in which candidates address these issues. This study finds some evidence to support the post-primary moderation effect based on the way that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton addressed healthcare in 2016 along with Mitt Romney’s policy prioritization in 2012, but also finds general trends towards all candidates bringing up contentious policies more in the general election | en_US |
dc.identifier.orcid | 0009-0006-1354-560X | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/28646 | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | University of Oregon | |
dc.rights | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | |
dc.subject | Politics | en_US |
dc.subject | Political communication | en_US |
dc.subject | Presidential election | en_US |
dc.subject | Debates | en_US |
dc.subject | Policy | en_US |
dc.title | Shifting Policy Priorities for Presidential Candidates Between the Primary and General Election | |
dc.type | Thesis/Dissertation |