American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56

Americanhttp://abs.sagepub.
com/ Behavioral Scientist
The Idealized Presidential Candidate : A Vision Over Time

Judith S. Trent, Cady Short-Thompson, Paul A. Mongeau, Maribeth S. Metzler and Jimmie D. Trent American Behavioral Scientist 2005 49: 130 DOI: 10.1177/0002764205279437 The online version of this article can be found at: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for American Behavioral Scientist can be found at: Email Alerts: http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/49/1/130.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jul 29, 2005 What is This?
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013
Trent et al.Behavioral 10.1177/0002764205279437 American / Idealized Scientist Presidential Candidate
The Idealized Presidential Candidate

A Vision Over Time
Judith S. Trent
University of Cincinnati
American Behavioral Scientist Volume 49 Number 1 September 2005 130-156 2005 Sage Publications 10.1177/0002764205279437 http://abs.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com
Cady Short-Thompson
Northern Kentucky University
Paul A. Mongeau
Arizona State University
Maribeth S. Metzler
University of Cincinnati Miami University of Ohio
Jimmie D. Trent
Image as a transaction between what candidates say and do and the way voters compare that behavior with their personal vision of what candidates should be or do stimulates at least three critical questions important to political communication. First, although the ability or power of the media to affect the success or failure of candidates and campaigns is believed by many citizens and documented by research, do views of individual members of the media regarding ideal qualities presidential candidates should possess differ significantly from those of voters? Second, do characteristics or attributes of the ideal presidential candidate, as affixed by the media and the electorate, vary from election to election? Finally, do the evaluative dimensions of idealness differ in relationship to gender, age, or party affiliation? Answers are determined from results of a survey of journalists covering and citizens attending political rallies in New Hampshire during the 1988 to 2004 presidential primaries. Keywords: ideal candidate; New Hampshire; primary
anuary 20, 2004, was an event-packed day for our research team to be in New Hampshire as the Democratic contenders for president of the United States made their way back from Iowa to the Granite State to begin their last week of frenetic cam-
130
Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 131
paigning before the January 27th primary. Senator John Kerry, who had won a surprise victory in the caucus, and Senator John Edwards, who had taken what he told supporters was an exciting second place win, hightailed it from Iowa to Manchester, New Hampshire, to get in a full day of appearances and rallies. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who not only had received a dismal third from caucus participants but also by then had attempted to cheer up his supporters with the immediately infamous Dean scream, flew into New Hampshire for a solemn media-packed morning press conference in which his major message was that he was continuing his campaign but going back to who I really am (Lawrence, 2004, p. 1) and then repaired back to his Vermont headquarters presumably to do some soul searching and strategizing. Representative Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton, whose Iowa campaigns had gained no traction at all, headed back to the Granite State for campaign appearances and to get ready for the Democratic debate just 2 days later. Of course, not all of those who were in the race made the trip back. Senator Joseph Lieberman and General Wesley Clark had decided earlier to pull out of the Iowa caucus altogether to concentrate in New Hampshire and other states where they believed their politically centrist messages would ignite more enthusiasm than they had in Iowa. Senator Bob Graham and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun had taken themselves out of the running before the Iowa caucus, and Representative Richard Gephardt had used the day after Iowa for a press conference to formally withdraw from the competition. Thus, seven Democratic contenders for president of the United States, one uncontested Republican who was the sitting president of the United States, thousands of media representatives from throughout the world, more than 1 million citizens of the Granite State, and our research team now faced the roller coaster ride known as the 2004 New Hampshire primary (Day of the Democrats, 2004, p. 1). Since 1988, our research teams have focused on the one of its kind, the New Hampshire primary (Kendall, 2000), to ask three questions relevant to the better understanding of presidential campaign communication. The first question we have asked is, What qualities or attributes do voters believe are important for a presidential candidate to possesswhat are the dimensions of the ideal presidential candidate? Second, do these views change with time or are they fairly consistent? And finally, we have been and are concerned with whether the views of voters and the views of the media who are reporting on the candidates and their campaigns are the same or differentdo they have conflicting visions about idealness? Obtaining answers to these questions has provided unparalleled opportunity to meet and talk with all of those who have run for the Republican and Democratic presidential nomination, hundreds of voters who have attended candidate rallies, and countless media representatives who have been in New Hampshire to report on it all.
Focus of the Study

This study was designed to extend surveys of voters and media representatives taken during the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 New Hampshire presidential primaries
132 American Behavioral Scientist
into the year 2004. In keeping with the earlier work (Trent, Mongeau, Trent, Kendall, & Cushing, 1993; Trent, Short-Thompson, Mongeau, Nusz, & Trent, 2001; Trent, Trent, Mongeau, & Short-Thompson, 1997), the purpose of the 2004 study was the comparison of voter and media criteria to determine presidential political image attributes across campaigns. We sought answers to three research questions: First, although the probability that the media has the ability and the power to affect the success or failure of political campaigns and candidates is popularly believed and is documented by research, do the view of individual media members regarding the qualities required of presidential candidates differ significantly from those of voters? Second, do the characteristics or criteria of the ideal president attributed to the candidate by the media or by the electorate vary from election to election? And third, do the evaluative dimensions of idealness differ by party affiliation, age, or gender? The issue of the influence of media coverage or bias during American presidential campaigns not only motivates a number of research studies (Alsina, Davies, & Gronbeck, 2001; Atwood & Jarvis, 1976; Coffey, 1975; Czepiec, 1976; Graber, 1971; Hahn, 2003; Hofstetter, Zukin, & Buss, 1978; Jamieson, 2000; Kepplinger, 1982; Kern, 2001; Lichter & Rothman, 1981; Masters, Sullivan, Feola, & McHugo, 1987; Moriarty & Garramone, 1986; Pike, 1985; Robinson & Sheehan, 1983; Sanders & Pace, 1977; Stempel, 1961, 1965, 1969; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1992) but also always seems to generate much popular journalistic discussion. In fact, discussion of and disputes concerning issues such as the content of media coverage (e.g., the fact that the Dean scream was shown on television 663 times in the 4 days following the event or that the media refer to the horse race aspect of a campaign rather than in-depth discussion of candidates positions on issues) and the ideological alignment of the press as compared with the electorate (evidence indicates that the owners of media outlets and editors of most newspapers are Republican but the individual media representatives are more likely to be Democrats or Independents) happen in every presidential election cycle. However, the question in this study involves whether media representatives vary from the public in their views as to what candidate characteristics are important in selecting a president. In 2000, we learned that the media was in essential agreement with the public on which candidate attributes were important. There was, in other words, no sense of the media leading the public (Trent et al., 2001). But is this finding consistent with the passage of time? In 2004, do the media and the public continue to agree? Although the question of the ideal characteristics of presidential candidates is one that is popularly debated in every U.S. presidential election cycle, for the 2004 campaign, in the aftermath of terrorism and war, presidential lies about weapons of mass destruction, daily violence in Iraq that was still killing American soldiers even after the war had been declared officially completed, unemployment, and jobs going overseas, the contenders wanted to talk about their personal qualities and qualifications to be presidenttheir biographies. For example, John Kerrys staff said that the essence of the senators campaign message is biographical. Kerry has demonstrated great strength and really sound judgment in very tough situations, and hes done that all his
life (VandeHei, 2004, p. A1). Wesley Clark appeared to understand from the beginning of his short campaign for the nomination that the central message of his candidacy is Wesley Clark, and the uniform he wore for thirty-four years as an officer in the United States Army (Boyer, 2003, p. 70). One of Richard Gephardts strategists said that focus groups in the early primary states found that Democrats
are looking for someone who can challenge Bush, not just on the issues but in a pretty dramatic personal contrast. They want someone who understands their life because he has lived itnot another rich guy. . . . Thus, for Gephardt, autobiography becomes the entry point to issues. (Broder, 2003, p. 4)
John Edwards major theme was his biography (growing up in a series of Southern mill towns in a family of churchgoing Baptists and attending public schools and universities). As he said in countless speeches,
Im proud of where I come from. I always will be. And I spent most of my adult life, before I went to the Senate, fighting for people who I believed played by the rules, and got hurt by people who didnt play by the rules. (Lemann, 2002, p. 62)
A similar theme ran through Dennis Kucinichs campaign message in that much of the time he talked about his personal experience of defeat and redemption and the way in which he kept trying in the face of defeat and then finally reemerging as a stronger person was an experience he believed many Americans will relate to (Eilperin, 2003, p. 7). In part, the candidates concentration on their own stories and personal qualities during the early stages of the 2004 presidential campaign may have seemed necessary because of the tensions and concerns felt by many Americans, but the fact is that presidential hopefuls, like most political candidates, typically place a priority on constructing a public persona or image of themselves. And it has never been easy, not only because researchers have failed to develop a theoretical consensus on the nature of presidential candidates personal qualities (Benoit & McHale, 2003, p. 321) but also because political images are complex, constructed not only from everything a candidate may do or say but also the confluence of candidate behavior with the beliefs of the voterswhat they, the voters, believe to be desirable or undesirable or right or wrong about the candidate and the campaign. In truth, it is the interdependence or the interaction of what a candidate does and says and the evaluative response voters have to it, the transaction or negotiated meaning between them, that defines image (Louden, 1990). So, in spite of the fact that presidential contenders and their campaigns sometimes go to extreme lengths to project a specific public image (John Kerry, e.g., standing in front of an aircraft carrier in Charlestown, South Carolina, to officially announce his candidacy; or the actor Martin Sheen, who plays President Bartlett on the long-running series West Wing, being introduced at Howard Dean rallies with much fanfare and flourishLadies and Gentlemen, President Bartlett, who then as president introduces the former Vermont governor), their success is frequently dependent on the preconceived beliefs voters have about the characteristics someone running for
president of the United States ought to possess (Miller, Wattenberg, & Malanchuk, 1986; Trent et al., 1997, 2001; Trent & Friedenberg, 2004). The interpretation of image as a transaction, however, does raise important (and interesting) questions in terms of consistency. Are the characteristics or dimensions of idealness consistent across presidential elections? Previous research evidences not only the stability of criteria or attributes (Miller et al., 1986; Trent et al., 1993, 1997, 2001; Trent & Friedenberg, 2004) but also the stability of specific characteristics (no matter who the actual contenders/candidates were) from the 1988 campaign through the 1996 campaign (Trent et al., 1997). In addition, the stability of the attributes was evident not only in what was believed to be important (e.g., the ability to talk about problems facing the country and being honest) but also in those considered unimportant (e.g., being male). However, in the 2000 study, after three consecutive samples (1988, 1992, and 1996) had evidenced absolute consistency of public and of media beliefs regarding which of the top attributes most characterized idealness, a change occurred. For the first time, both the public and the media reported that the candidates ability to talk about the problems facing the nation was the second most important attribute. It was replaced by being honest, which in earlier studies (1988, 1992, 1996) had been rated as second. Thus, until the 2000 New Hampshire primary campaign, the public, as well as the media, had been remarkably consistent regarding the most important characteristic a presidential candidate should possess. In addition, it is interesting to note that the results of the 2000 study are consistent in terms of the least important attributes; for the public and for the media, being male or being younger than 65 years of age remained unimportant. But what about 2004? Does the public, with the bevy of seven Democratic contenders and one uncontested sitting Republican president to choose among, remain committed to the attributes they found most and least important just 4 years earlier? And will the consistency between the public and the media remain constant in terms of the vision of an idealized presidential candidate? The third research questionwhether the evaluative dimensions that voters attribute to presidential candidates differ by demographic factors such as party affiliation, age, and genderhas not been easily answered in the 1988 through 2000 studies. What is true in one campaign can change in another. For example, although citizen affiliation with a major party was once considered an important issue, the fact is that since the mid-1960s, the results of election studies conducted by the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan show that fewer and fewer citizens identify themselves as either Republicans or Democrats and that by 1994, 35% of those surveyed self-identified as Independent Democrats, Independent Independents, or Independent Republicans (Trent & Friedenberg, 2004). Moreover, in our studies of New Hampshire citizens and the media, the percentage of those who think of themselves as Independents has increased each year, including 2000, when the number of citizens who called themselves Independents almost quadrupled from what it has been in 1988 (Trent et al., 2001). And in the actual 2004 New Hampshire primary, independent voters played a major role, in that they made up almost half45 percent of New Hampshires record Democratic primary turnout of about 200,000 (Lester, 2004, p. A4).
Finally, in recent elections, there has been some attention paid to the issue of gender biasthe fact that women and men favored and voted for different candidates (Carpini & Fuchs, 1993; Edsall, 1996; Jamieson, 2000; Trent et al., 1997, 2001; Trent & Friedenberg, 2004). We know, for example, that in our New Hampshire studies of 1992, 1996, and 2000, men have consistently found it more important than have women that the presidential candidate be male. The question is, What about 2004? Do men still tend to define a presidential candidate in terms of gender?
Method and Procedure

To answer our three research questions, surveys were completed by 192 professional journalists and 658 citizens (850 total) attending presidential campaign rallies and candidate appearances in New Hampshire during the last 7 days before the 2004 New Hampshire presidential primary election. Three of the authors randomly distributed the questionnaires at more than a dozen separate political events. In comparing the 2004 primary campaign events to those in 1988 through 2000, the interest and attention of both the media and public was higher as evidenced by the standing-roomonly attendance at the numerous candidate events, record voter turnout for the 2004 Democratic New Hampshire primary, and the record number of surveys gathered by our research team.1 In the 2004 election cycle, all of the New Hampshire events were for Democratic candidates. Seven DemocratsRetired Army General Wesley Clark, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, Senator John Edwards (North Carolina), Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Senator Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut), and Reverend Al Sharptoncampaigned for president in the New Hampshire primary, but so did a whopping 50 lesser known and less credible candidates. Republican George W. Bush, the incumbent president and the uncontested Republican nominee, never made an appearance in New Hampshire the week before the primary. Thus, with only Democratic candidates, surveys were distributed only at Democratic events. As a result, far fewer Republican respondents were in attendance and completed our questionnaire in 2004 than in 1992 and 1996 when the then sitting president running for election did visit New Hampshire at least once in the last week of the primary. As in the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 campaigns, the survey instrument asked respondents to mark a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 = strong agreement and 1 = strong disagreement) on each of the following 12 statements regarding the desirability of a presidential candidate possessing specific image characteristics: (a) have experience in office, (b) energetic and aggressive leader, (c) forceful public speaker, (d) moral character, (e) talk about nations problems, (f) honest, (g) male, (h) remain calm and cautious, (i) same race as I am, (j) served in the military, (k) talk about religious beliefs, and (l) talk about corporate responsibility. The last 3 characteristics were added to the 2004 survey to examine the effect of context on criteria application. The served in the military statement was not completely new to the study as it had been
included on the 1996 survey instrument; however, it was reintroduced in 2004 because of the war in Iraq and the resultant heightened discussion of the desirability of military experience for presidential aspirants in a postSeptember 11 era. The second addition to the characteristics, talk about religious beliefs, was added to the list to assess the impact of Christian Evangelicals or the religious right on the political process (as well as President Bushs multiple references to his Christian faith as president and candidate for reelection). The third attribute added, talk about corporate responsibility, was included to gauge respondents opinions in light of current events and controversies such as the financially devastating corporate and accounting scandals of the early 2000s involving Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and Global Crossing.
Results
Sample Demographics
Table 1 describes the sample sizes and demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, and party affiliation) of the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 media and public subsamples. Media subsamples. As in the previous campaigns, the 2004 media subsample is composed predominantly of men who are younger than 51 years of age and either Democratic or Independent (Trent et al., 1993, 1997, 2001). Moreover, the 2004 media subsample includes evidence of increased media diversity that first appeared in 2000. Specifically, there is a significant difference in the proportion of men and women in the media subsamples across campaigns, 2 (4, n = 728) = 19.14, p < .001. Media subsamples in the 2000 (36.5%) and 2004 (30.9%) campaigns included a greater proportion of women than in the 1992 and 1996 subsamples. Public subsamples. The demographics of the public subsamples vary more across campaigns than do media subsamples (Trent et al., 1993, 1997, 2001). The five public subsamples differ significantly by party affiliation and age (but not by sex). The significant difference for age indicates that the 2004 subsample reversed the graying of the public subsamples observed between 1988 and 2000, 2(16, n = 1,852) = 142.50, p < .001. When compared with the 2000 subsample, the 2004 public subsample contained nearly twice the proportion of individuals in the 18 to 30 age group and fewer 2 than half the proportion of individuals in the 61 and older group. The public subsamples also differ dramatically in party affiliation across campaigns because they contain relatively few supporters of the incumbent party (e.g., few 2 Republicans in 1992 and few Democrats in 1996 and 2000), (8, n = 1,831) = 322.65, p < .001. In 2004, a vast majority of the public subsample was either Democratic or Independent. Moreover, the percentage of Independents in the public subsamples has grown steadily across campaigns, doubling between 1988 (18.2%) and 2000 (38.6%). Although the percentage of independents dropped somewhat between 2000 and 2004,
Table 1 Demographic Composition of the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 Samples
Media 1988 111 9 43 45 36 48 15 6 1 0 72 27 101 22 118 30 108 62 130 58 36 42 35 8 1 1 46 43 45 11 3 1 56 63 33 13 4 1 53 68 45 17 3 2 79 80 58 25 15 2 132 95 13 41 70 12 52 72 26 60 84 26 66 92 106 101 49 42 73 54 42 29 35 25 31 8 76 95 125 152 170 192 268 176 1992 1996 2000 2004 1988 1992 1996 290 113 83 84 66 43 76 40 43 18 149 132 Public 2000 495 193 111 191 75 61 128 89 88 54 265 230 2004 658 29 390 212 174 100 147 137 62 22 353 279
Demographic Item
Total sample
Party affiliation Republican Democrat Independent Age (in years) 18 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 and older Sex Men Women
Note: Subgroup samples do not sum to the total sample because of missing data.
137
nearly one third of participants (32.2%) in the most recent public subsample described themselves as Independents.
Comparing Media and Public Subsamples

Although the demographic composition of the public subsamples varies across campaigns (particularly for age and party affiliation), within-campaign differences between media and public subsamples tend to remain relatively consistent (Trent et al., 1993, 1997, 2001). As was true in previous campaigns, the 2004 media and public subsample differed on age, sex, and party affiliation. For age, the 2004 media 2 subsample was younger than the public subsample, (4, n = 830) = 55.27, p < .001. The 2004 media subsample was more likely to be Republican and Independent (and 2 less likely to be Democratic) than the 2004 public subsamples, (2, n = 830) = 46.89, p < .001. This finding differs from past campaigns (where media subsamples tended to be more Democratic than public subsamples) because the 2004 public subsample contained very few Republicans. Finally, as with the 1988, 1992, and 1996 (but not the 2000) campaigns, the 2004 media subsample contained very few Republicans. Finally, as with the 1988, 1992, and 1996 (but not the 2000) campaigns, the 2004 media subsample contained a significantly greater proportion of men when compared with the 2004 public subsample, 2(1, n = 824) = l0.13, p < .001.
Ratings of Candidate Characteristics Across Campaigns

Table 2 presents mean importance ratings for all candidate characteristics across all five campaigns, broken down by the media and public subsamples. Evaluations of the importance of candidate characteristics tend not to shift dramatically across campaigns (Trent et al., 1993, 1997, 2001). Important characteristics in previous campaigns (e.g., honest and be of the highest moral integrity) remain important characteristics for both subsamples in the 2004 campaign. The least important characteristics in previous campaigns (e.g., male) are also considered quite unimportant in both 2004 subsamples. Three characteristics were measured for the first time in 2004. Both media and public subsamples considered it unimportant that the candidates talk about their personal religious beliefs. In a similar manner, both groups felt that it was unimportant that the candidate be of the same race as I am. Finally, both subsamples felt that it is very important the candidates discuss corporate responsibility.
Variation Across Campaigns for Media Subsamples

Media ratings of candidate characteristics were very consistent across the 1988, 1992, and 1996 campaigns. This consistency came to an abrupt end in 2000, where the media considered characteristics much more important than in the earlier subsamples. Mean ratings of candidate characteristics for the 2004 media subsample are not as extreme as reported by this group in 2000; however, neither do the ratings return to earlier levels. Specifically, of the nine items in the 2004 measure that were also used in
Table 2 Mean Importance Ratings of Presidential Candidate Characteristics, by Media and Public Subsamples and Campaign (1998, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004)
Media 1988 4.15 3.87 3.78 4.67 4.65 1.66 3.23 2.59 3.76 4.11 3.60 3.90 4.84 4.75 1.83 4.06 4.08 3.28 2.80 4.11 3.87 3.80 4.22 4.68 4.51 1.71 4.05 3.97 2.15 3.38 2.78 4.11 1.69 2.15 3.32 4.51 4.41 4.51 4.84 4.87 2.41 4.55 4.57 4.00 2.94 4.60 3.31 4.22 3.94 4.28 4.63 4.66 1.95 4.17 4.43 3.27 2.13 4.05 1.82 3.93 4.22 4.21 4.86 4.79 2.36 4.08 2.76 4.13 4.13 4.18 4.17 4.85 4.85 2.01 4.26 4.35 3.61 2.97 4.48 3.80 4.10 4.27 4.80 4.78 2.02 4.28 4.43 2.68 4.06 2.88 4.35 2.15 2.63 3.96 1992 1996 2000 2004 1988 1992 1996 Public 2000 4.27 4.15 4.34 4.82 4.88 2.19 4.30 4.54 4.26 2.92 4.23 2.69 2004 4.07 3.96 4.30 4.69 4.83 1.84 4.15 4.51 2.87 2.33 4.34 1.53
Candidate Characteristic
Have experience in office Energetic and aggressive leader Forceful public speaker Talk about nations problems Honest Male Remain calm and cautious Moral character Served in the military Talk about religious beliefs Talk about corporate responsibility Same race as I am Faithful to the spouse Younger than 60/65 years of age Have solutions to problems Not accused of violating the law Member of the majority race Finance campaign with own money Spouses moral character Be Democrat or Republican
Note: Dashes indicate that particular characteristic was not investigated in that campaign.
139
at least one earlier campaign, mean ratings of eight candidate characteristics differed significantly across media subsamples. In most every case, mean values are larger in 2000 than 1988, 1992, and 1996, with 2004 means in between. Significant differences were found for have experience in office, F(4, 744) = 10.53, p < .01, 2 = .05; energetic 2 and aggressive leader, F(4, 743) = 15.49, p < .01, = .08; forceful public speaker, F(4, 2 2 745) = 17.10, p < .01, = .08; moral character, F(3, 635) = 17.63, p < .01, = .08; 2 2 honest, F(4, 744) = 5.37, p < .01, = .03; male, F(4, 744) = 11.78, p < .01, = .06; 2 remain calm and cautious, F(3, 635) = 11.98, p < .01, = .05; talk about the nations 2 problems, F(4, 744) = 4.44, p < .01, = .02); and have served in the military, t(359) = 2 10.47, p < .01, = .23.
Differences Across Campaigns for Public Subsamples

Public subsamples mean responses varied significantly across campaigns for five characteristics. First, experience in office was considered a more important characteristic in 1992, 2004, and especially 2000 when compared to 1988 and 1996 public subsamples, F(4, 1881) = 8.59, p < .01, 2 = .02. Second, that the candidate is male was considered somewhat more important in 1988 and 2000 when compared with 2 1992, 1996, and especially 2004, F(4, 1878) = 10.28, p < .01, = .02. Third, ratings that the candidate be of the highest moral character have steadily increased across campaigns from 1992 to 2000, whereas the 2004 mean rating is very close to its immediate predecessor, F(3, 1611) = 4.98, p < .01, 2 = .01. Fourth, that the candidate should be an aggressive and energetic leader remained consistent between 1988 and 2 2000 and declined sharply in 2004, F(4, 1878) = 5.80, p < .01, = .01. Finally, that the candidate should have served in the military was considered more important in 2004 than in 1996 (the only other time this characteristic was measured), t(1145) = 2 3.00, p < .01, = .01.
Media/Public Differences in Evaluations of Candidate Characteristics

Within the 1988, 1992, and 1996 campaigns, typical differences between media and public subsamples were small and the public subsample found characteristics to be more important than the corresponding media subsample (Trent et al., 1993, 1997). In 2000, when significant differences appeared between the media and public subsamples, they remained small; however, the media subsample reported that characteristics were more important than the public subsample. In the 2004 campaign, mean ratings of four candidate characteristics differed significantly between media and public subsamples. In two of these cases, the media considered the characteristics more important than did the public, whereas in the other two cases the opposite was true. First, although moderate in both groups, the media mean for the candidate should have served in the military was significantly higher than the public mean, t(841) = 4.54, p < .001, 2 = .03. Second, although extremely low in both groups, the mean for the media was significantly higher than the public mean for
the candidate should be the same race as I am, t(845) = 4.23, p < .001, = .03. Third, although both groups strongly agreed that the candidate should be honest, the mean for the public subsample was significantly greater than the mean for the media subsample, t(846) = 4.62, p < .001, 2 = .03. Finally, although important to both groups, the public subsample reported that candidates should discuss corporate responsibility to a greater extent than the media subsample, t(844) = 4.31, p < 2 .01, = .03.
Party Affiliation and Ratings of Candidate Characteristics

In the 2004 campaign, responses to six candidate characteristics differed significantly across party affiliations (see Table 3). In four of these cases, the pattern of mean differences was identical. Specifically, for the candidate should talk about their religious beliefs, F(2, 816) = 22.71, p < .001, 2 = .05; should have military experience, 2 2 F(2, 811) = 17.28, p < .001, = .04; should be male, F(2, 813) = 15.18, p < .001, = 2 .04; and should be of the same race I am, F(2, 813) = 27.46, p < .001, = .06, mean ratings for Republicans were higher than mean ratings for Democrats and Independents (who did not differ from one another). Republicans agreed significantly more than Independents that a candidate should have experience in office, whereas Democrats did not differ from either group, F(2, 817) = 6.62, p < .001, 2 = .02. Finally, Democrats agreed significantly more than Independents that the candidate should be a 2 forceful public speaker, F(2, 814) = 5.90, p < .01, = .01. The mean rating for Republicans was between, and did not differ from, that for Democrats and Independents.
Sex Differences in Ratings of Candidate Characteristics

The only significant sex difference in ratings of candidate characteristics for the 1992, 1996, and 2000 samples was that men considered it more important than women that a candidate be male (Trent et al. 1993, 1997; see Table 4). Consistent with these results, the largest sex difference in the 2004 sample is that men, when compared with women, consider it more important that a candidate be male, t(817) = 5.62, p < .001, 2 = .04. Men also considered it more important than women that a candidate be the 2 same race as I am, t(818) = 2.91, p < .01, = .01. Women, on the other hand, felt that it was more important than men that the candidate be of the highest moral integrity, 2 t(819) = 2.82, p < .01, = .01.
Age Differences in Ratings of Candidate Characteristics

The number of statistically significant age differences in the ratings of candidate characteristics varies across campaigns. In 1988, there were no significant age differences, in 1992 there was one significant age difference (Trent et al., 1993), in 1996 there were nine significant differences by age (Trent et al., 1997), and in the 2000 sample, there were three significant age differences (see Table 5). In the 2004 sample,
Table 3 Mean Ratings of Presidential Candidate Characteristics, by Party Affiliation of Respondent

Candidate Characteristic 2004 sample Experience in office Talk about religious beliefs Have military experience Male Should be the same race I am Forceful public speaker 2000 sample Faithful to spouse Honest Male High moral integrity Be Republican or Democrat 1996 sample Have experience in office Faithful to spouse Male High moral integrity Majority race Served in military Finances own campaign Spouses moral integrity 1992 sample Faithful to spouse Younger than 65 Male 1988 sample Energetic leader Faithful to the spouse Forceful public speaker Male Republican 4.47a 3.07a 3.71a 2.56a 2.40a 4.35ab 4.60a 4.94a 2.69a 4.73a 3.16a 3.66a 4.48b 2.55a 4.72a 2.48a 3.22a 2.86a 4.36a 4.02a 2.63a 2.44 4.38a 4.46a 4.31a 2.92a Democrat 4.14b 2.14b 2.84b 1.78b 1.51b 4.36a 3.87b 4.81b 1.86b 4.44b 2.95a 4.25b 3.37c 1.56b 3.94b 1.70b 1.99b 2.09b 3.37b 3.38b 3.14b 1.83b 3.97b 3.52b 3.95b 1.74b Independent 3.98ab 2.36b 3.04b 1.87b 1.58b 4.19b 4.08b 4.87ab 2.12c 4.47b 2.53b 3.69a 3.75a 1.75b 4.29c 1.88b 2.37c 2.46c 3.62b 3.27b 2.79a 1.75b 4.11ab 3.65b 4.02 1.88b
Note: Within each row, means without common letters differ significantly (p < .01).
there were four statistically significant age differences. For the energetic leader characteristic, means for participants in the 18 to 30 age group were significantly lower than those in the 31 to 40 group and the 61 and older group, F(4, 821) = 4.74, p < .01, 2 = .02. Second, participants older than 50 years of age (i.e., in the 51 to 60 group and the 60 and older group) felt that it was more important that the candidates talk about their religious beliefs when compared with those in the youngest three age groups, F(4, 824) = 5.92, p < .001, 2 = .03. Third, participants in their 30s felt that it was more important that the candidate have military experience when compared with those in 2 the 18 to 30 group and the 41 to 50 group, F(4, 818) = 4.57, p < .01, = .02. Finally,
Table 4 Mean Ratings of Presidential Candidate Characteristics, by Sex of Respondent

Candidate Characteristic 2004 sample Male Same race as I am Moral integrity 2000 sample Male 1996 sample Male 1992 sample Male 1988 sample Not accused of violating law Talk about nations problems Men 2.02 1.66 4.44 2.43 2.14 2.12 3.83 4.74 Women 1.62 1.49 4.57 2.00 1.54 1.54 4.29 4.90
participants in the 51 to 60 age group felt that it was more important that the candidate talk about corporate responsibility than all other age groups, F(4, 822) = 5.67, p < 2 .001, = .03.
Discussion
For the fifth time, this study examined the individual views of journalists and citizens attending rallies for presidential contenders seeking the nomination in New Hampshire. In 2004, only the Democratic contenders were competing. Answers were sought regarding the characteristics of idealness between the media and the public based on demographic considerations such as party affiliation, gender, and age.
Media and the Public

At first glance, it is remarkable how much the media and the public agree and disagree on what constitutes idealness in presidential candidates. In election 2004, for example, statistically significant differences were found in only 4 of the 12 items, including served in the military, be the same race as I am, be honest, and talk about corporate responsibility. However, any sense of disagreement of those statistically significant rating differences between the public and the media is lessened with closer examination of the actual ratings of the individual items. The media and public strongly agreed that the most important characteristics were that the candidate be honest, talk about nations problems, and moral character (in exact rank order). However, they not only strongly agreed on 3 characteristics but also agreed (not in the same order) on the next 4 items as well, including forceful public speaker, have experience in office, remain calm and cautious, and talk about corporate responsibility. In other
Table 5 Mean Ratings of Presidential Candidate Characteristics, by Age of Respondent

Candidate Characteristic 2004 sample Energetic leader Talk abut religious beliefs Military experience Corporate responsibility Candidate Characteristic 2000 sample Faithful to spouse Male Highest moral integrity Candidate Characteristic 1996 sample Experience in office Physically energetic Faithful to spouse Honest Male Highest moral integrity Majority race Served in military Spouses moral integrity 18 to 30 3.96a 2.11a 4.37a 18 to 30 3.79a 2.11a 2.79a 4.23a 31 to 40 4.00ab 2.19a 4.43ab 18 to 30 4.04a 3.90a 3.66a 4.71ab 1.77a 4.13a 1.97a 2.26a 3.46a 31 to 40 4.09b 2.17a 3.24b 4.17a 41 to 50 4.27e 2.12a 4.53ab 31 to 40 3.73ab 3.93a 3.49a 4.62a 1.76a 4.14a 1.74a 2.40ab 3.45a 41 to 50 3.93ab 2.26a 2.94a 4.24a 51 to 60 4.21de 2.20a 4.64bc 41 to 50 3.94ab 4.02a 3.73a 4.60a 1.79a 4.23a 1.81a 2.39ab 3.73ab 51 to 60 4.01ab 2.51b 3.04ab 4.55b 61 to 70 4.55bcde 2.38ab 4.80c 51 to 60 3.75ab 3.94a 4.14b 4.74ab 2.22ab 4.44ab 2.12a 2.78bc 4.12bc 61 and Older 4.17b 2.58b 2.90ab 4.20a 71 and Older 4.38abcd 2.85b a 4.69bc 61 and Older 3.36b 4.39b 4.49c 4.89b 2.35a 4.69b 2.56b 2.98c 4.34c
Note: Within each row, means without common letters differ significantly (p < .01).
words, when the ratings are ranked for each group, the top 7 of the desirable characteristics are the same (not always in the same order) of the 12 characteristics listed on the questionnaire. The media and public also agreed (in the same exact order) that the least important candidate characteristics are being the same race as I am, male, and talk about religious beliefs. Therefore, the media and public placed 10 of 12 characteristics in similar positions (top 7 and bottom 3)in other words, a uniform, ideal image of a presidential candidate. In addition, the actual differences between the public and media ratings were small, with the largest mean difference being just .40 with all of the others in a .02 to .29 range on a 5-point scale. In short, any differences found between the media and public are differences of degree not differences of kind. However, in the 2004 campaign, there were four candidate characteristics that differed significantly between the media and public subsamples that bear some explanation. It is interesting that in two of these cases, the media considered the characteristics more important than did the public, whereas in the other two cases the opposite was true.
First, although ranked moderately by both subsamples, the media mean for candidates having served in the military was significantly higher than the public mean. In the largest mean difference between the media and public in the 2004 study, the media ranked military experience .40 higher than the public. Perhaps the media rated military service higher than the public because they or colleagues close to them have covered the war and, therefore, think about it more than the public at large. One could argue that the media are exposed to issues of war more often and know the topic and the specific contexts more thoroughly than the mass public. Additional explanations for increased importance of military service are offered in the longitudinal discussion section. Second, although ranked the lowest by both groups, the mean for the media was statistically significantly higher than the public mean for the candidate being the same race as I am. Because former Senator Carol Moseley Braun withdrew before the Iowa caucus and Al Sharpton made only one campaign appearance in the 10 days before any New Hampshire votes were cast, race may not have been perceived to be a relevant issue by the media in this presidential race. Certainly Moseley Braun and Sharpton had not been considered serious contenders. Had there been a top-tier contender of color, the overall ratings of the characteristic same race as I am may have increased for both the media and public respondents. Third, although both groups strongly agreed that the candidate should be honest, the mean for the public subsample (4.83) was significantly greater than the mean for the media (4.66). The publics rating of 4.83 is the single highest number for media and public responses in the 2004 study (although it did earn a rating of 4.88 in 2000). Although President Clinton allegedly lied under oath to a grand jury about his personal affair with Intern Monica Lewinsky, President Bushs honesty had been questioned in relation to his military action in Iraq and Iraqs failure to have weapons of mass destruction. The president and his administrations intelligence and integrity were questioned, criticized, and impugned by many voters as the caucus and primary stage of the 2004 presidential campaign began. Critics even sarcastically changed the meaning of the acronym WMD from weapons of mass destruction to weapons of mass deception, offering crushing criticism of the administrations and the presidents ethics and motives. It should be noted that during that period of time, Republicans tended to be more accepting of Bushs rationale for the preemptive war in Iraq. It can also be argued that honesty epitomizes an ideal trait that can be difficult to accurately perceive and assess in people, especially those known only through mediated or public presentation. Simply put, many individuals will assume others are honest until proven wrong. The medias slightly lower mean on the rating of honesty may suggest that they are more cynical than the slightly more idealistic public regarding the presumed honesty of those who would be or are the president of the United States. Fourth, although important to both groups, the public subsample (M = 4.34) reported that a candidate should talk about corporate responsibility to a greater extent than did the media subsample (M = 4.05). The heart of this characteristic is also honesty, both for the politician in tackling the controversial events fraught with powerful people and for the dishonest, greedy executives themselves. The timing of our data
collection coincided with the time the public was hearing almost daily stories of executives being arraigned, prosecuted, or imprisoned, including even the American picture of domestic perfection, Martha Stewart. Finally, the results of this study do not support claims of media bias or the presence of a liberal media (strongly favoring Democrats as opposed to Republicans). However, demographically, in terms of partisan affiliation, the sample of professional journalists and citizens surveyed in this study was less Republican than the general American voting public. For example, a total of 86% of the media surveyed labeled themselves as Democrats (36%) or as Independents (50%) versus as Republicans (14%). Although when the media personnel were asked about the characteristics important for presidential candidates to possess, their beliefs were highly congruent to those of the public. In fact, as was the case in 2000, the views of the media and public have once again grown more similar. In 2000, the media and the public disagreed on the placement of seven characteristics, and in 2004, just four. Moreover, support for the idea of a liberal media bias is further weakened when we consider that the media believed several traditionally (or stereotypically) conservative issuesserved in the military and same race as I amwere more important than did members of the voting public. It is worth restating, however, that the public sample also was composed of more Democrats (61%) and Independents (34%) and fewer Republicans (5%) than in previous years because of the uncontested Republican nomination and the highly competitive Democratic race. Therefore, in 2004, the largely Independent and Democratic media (86%) were being compared to a largely Independent and Democratic (95%) public sample. Consistency among elections. The assessment of the importance of candidate characteristics has not changed dramatically across the five campaign cycles. Important characteristics for the ideal presidential candidate in previous campaignshonest, moral character, and talk about nations problemsremain important attributes for both the public and for the media in the 2004 campaign. Similarly, the least important characteristic in previous years, being male, was again deemed unimportant in 2004. Typical differences between the media and public during the 1988, 1992, and 1996 campaigns were small, and the public consistently rated the characteristics to be more important than did the media. In 2000, however, significant differences were found between the media and the public in that the media reported that characteristics were more important than did the public. As noted earlier, in 2004, of the four differences between the media and public, they split evenly, with the public and media each reporting that two characteristics were of more importance to each than any of the other characteristics. Two characteristics were measured for the first time in 2004. Both media and public subsamples considered it unimportant that the candidate talk about personal religious beliefs and be of the same race. Several differences found across elections can be explained by demographic features, such as party affiliation, gender, and age, and will be discussed later in this section.
From 1988 to 1996, the media ratings of candidate characteristics were consistent. However, the longitudinal consistency among professional journalists ended in 2000 when the media considered characteristics much more important than they had in the earlier studies. In 2004, mean ratings of candidate characteristics for the media subsample are not as extreme as those reported by this subgroup in 2000, although the ratings do not return to earlier levels either. Of the nine items in the 2004 questionnaire that were used at least once before, all nine of the candidate characteristics differed significantly across media subsamples. In almost every case, mean values are larger in 2000 than 1988, 1992, and 1996, with the 2004 means in between. Significant differences were found for have experience in office, energetic and aggressive leader, forceful public speaker, moral character, honest, male, remain calm and cautious, talk about the nations problems, and have served in the military. The public mean responses varied significantly across campaigns for five characteristics. First, experience in office was considered a more important characteristic in 1992, 2004, and especially in 2000 when compared to 1988 and 1996 public responses. The importance of having experience is undoubtedly best explained by the fact that there were incumbent presidents running for reelection in both 1992 and 2004, with an ascendant vice president running in 2000 and in 1988. Each had had significant experience before running. In 2000, however, with Vice President Al Gore running against Texas Governor George W. Bush, levels of experience were different than they had been in the recent past. Thus, it is difficult to be sure whether the attribute of experience in office speaks more about favoring the candidate in the race who has it or the candidate who lacks it. Clearly, the question of being a Washington insider or outsider, in other words, being experienced in the ways of a politically charged Washington, D.C., is answered differently by each presidential contender. In 2004, some of the contenders, such as Gephardt and Lieberman, touted their years in elective officein Washingtonas a reason the electorate should vote for them. Others, such as Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, attempted to profit from their outside-thebeltway experience. Second, that the candidate is male was considered somewhat more important in 1988 and 2000 when compared with 1992, 1996, and especially 2004. Because Carol Moseley Braun had withdrawn from the race, before the Iowa caucus, the public may have deemed candidate gender a nonissue in that only male candidates were competing. It is interesting that both men and women rated being male as more important in 2004 than they had in 2000. Perhaps the public questions if there will ever be a qualified, well-financed, female presidential candidate with a voting public ready to accept and elect her. Third, ratings that the candidate should possess high moral character have steadily increased from 1992 to 2000, although the 2004 mean rating is very close to 2000. The notion of possessing high moral character may linger in voters minds because of the years of public and media discussion and investigations during the 8 Clinton years. Given the fact that George W. Bush based much of his first presidential campaign on morals and honesty to distinguish himself from the Clinton/Gore administration, and
the fact that he was running for reelection, it may not be surprising that moral character or values remains a central theme and valued attribute. This characteristic is also discussed in the section on party affiliation, but it is important to conclude that personally oriented characteristics such as moral character and honesty continue to be of critical importance to the public (compared to years before when professionally oriented attributes such as experience and having solutions to problems dominated their priorities). There is no question that moral integrity has been increasing in importance across all of the campaigns studied from 1992 to 2000, with 2004 nearly as important as in 2000. It is interesting, however, that both the public and the media rated high moral character as important but talk about religious beliefs as unimportant. Although we can only speculate about the relationship of these characteristics one to the other, clearly our respondents did not view them as necessarily connected. Fourth, that the candidate should be an aggressive and energetic leader remained consistent between 1988 and 2000 and declined greatly in 2004. Perhaps the public rated this significantly lower in 2004 because of a negative association of the behavior attributed to President Bush. George W. Bush has been described as an aggressive cowboy type who acts swiftly and makes aggressive statements regarding our enemies, as in Bring em on and his observation that Osama bin Laden is wanted dead or alive. One journalist depicted the president as having a shoot first, ask questions later mentality (Untruth and Consequences, 2003). On the other hand, the lack of enthusiasm for the attribute may have been nothing more than an acknowledgment that the sitting president and each of his Democratic challengers were as energetic and aggressive as one visualizes a president should be. In other words, there were no perceived problems and, therefore, the characteristic did not seem particularly relevant or important. Finally, that the candidate should have served in the military was considered more important in 2004 than the only other time this characteristic was measured, in 1996. We anticipated that this characteristic would be more important than it was in 1996 because of the terrorist attacks on September 11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which made the issue of a candidates military knowledge and experience central particularly when the incumbent presidents judgment and handling of the wars as commander in chief are frequently publicly debated and analyzed by the media. Mixed results of the wars and no clear ending date have led some to publicly question the necessity of military action, with many Americans characterizing the war in Iraq as premature rather than the last possible option (Klein, 2004). The characteristic of military service becomes all the more interesting when contrasting the actual military experiences of the 2004 candidates, ranging from no experience whatsoever to a Vietnam War hero and a retired four-star army general. Party affiliation. In the 2004 sample, six characteristics showed significant differences in ratings based on party affiliation (see Table 3). In four of those characteristicsmilitary experience, male, race, and religious beliefsDemocrats and Independents did not differ significantly from each other, but both did differ significantly from Republicans, with the Republicans having the highest rating in each category.
None of these four characteristics was rated very highly, with the exception of military experience by the Republicans. Considering the way the campaign later played out, with the military experience of each presidential candidate being questioned, interpreted, and reinterpreted, this finding is interesting. Even at the time of the New Hampshire primary, the Democratswith a decorated Vietnam veteran (Kerry) and a retired four-star general (Clark) among the viable candidateswould seem to have had the upper hand on this issue. In 1996, when the Republicans had a World War II hero, Bob Dole, running against Bill Clinton, whose military record was questionable, the fact that Republicans rated this characteristic higher than Democrats and Independents was more understandable. Although never rated as very important, in every year of this research, Republicans have rated a candidate being male significantly higher than Democrats and Independents. The only other time (1996) a race characteristic was among the questions, the Republicans also rated it higher than either Democrats or Republicans (but as with male, not very important). Finally, considering Bushs constant reliance on his faith as a justification for his policies as president, it is no surprise that Republicans rated this characteristic higher than either Democrats or Independents. Although recent presidents have, by all reports, been men of deep faith (Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton), none publicly used religious faith and values to the extent they have been used by George W. Bush. The two remaining characteristics with differences along party lines, experience in office and forceful public speaker, are more mixed. On the issue of experience, Republicans gave it the highest rating, but the rating was not significantly higher than that of the Democrats. Independents rated it the lowest but not significantly lower than Democrats. Conventional wisdom would indicate that the party with an incumbent, in 2004 the Republicans, would find this attribute important. And Republicans did find it very important in this study. However, the Democrats also gave the item much importance and Independents were not far behind. The one other time that this characteristic showed significant differences (1996), the Democrats rated it highest (Clinton was the sitting president) and the Republicans and Independents were close to equal in rating it significantly lower. The 1996 results, thus, follow conventional expectations. In 2004, however, the major party out of power agreed with the major party in power. As for the public speaking abilities of a president, the Republicans and Democrats were again united, this time almost exactly, with Independents significantly lower than Democrats but not significantly different from Republicans. The one time this characteristic showed significant differences was in 1988. Reagan, the Great Communicator, was leaving office and had perhaps created, or at least enhanced, the expectation that a president would be able to convey his ideas forcefully through the spoken word. In 1988, Republicans rated this characteristic significantly higher than either the Democrats or Independents. In 2004, the Republicans had a president who was widely parodied for his ability to mangle the English language. Yet they rated speaking ability as highly as the Democrats. One might have expected the Democrats to rate this characteristic highly, given the widely discussed and acknowledged theoretical weaknesses of the incumbent they hoped to unseat. But Republicans also clearly found it important, as did Independents. What may well have been the issue is Bushs ability to take
on the common man persona. He is clearly able to connect with Middle America through his cowboy boots, out-on-the-ranch, you-and-me-kinda-guy approach. And as communication scholars from Aristotle to Burke have recognized, the key to persuasion is the ability to connect with your audience. All parties seemed to recognize that this ability was important in the 2004 election. Sex of the electorate. Three characteristics differed on the basis of sex of the respondent in 2004: male, race, and moral integrity (see Table 4). That a presidential candidate be male has never had a high rating, but as in 1992, 1996, and 2000, women rated this attribute as significantly less important than men. The only other place being male showed a significant difference was along party lines, where Republicans favored male candidates (but again, the characteristic was not considered important overall). Race was not considered important by either sex, but women did consider it significantly less important than did men. Again, the one other time this characteristic showed significant differences was along party lines, with Republicans finding race more important than either Democrats or Independents. As in the party affiliation results, this could well harken back to the gender and racial appeal of the political parties. Finally, moral integrity was rated highly by both sexes, with women rating it significantly higher. Although the moral integrity characteristic has been part of the research since 1992, this is the first time its rating has differed based on sex of the respondent. In 1996 and 2000, differences were found along party lines, with Republicans rating it highest both times and Independents rating it higher than Democrats in 1996 (in the midst of President Clintons problems). That women should now find this characteristic more important than men may indicate that women are becoming less tolerant of any decline in the moral character of official Washington than are men. Age of the electorate. The age of the respondents produced four differences in the 2004 sample: energetic leader, religious beliefs, military experience, and corporate responsibility. Energetic leader received a fairly high rating, but it was generally more important to older segments of the electorate. However, the results were somewhat mixed. Although one might think that younger voters would want a more energetic leader, the 18- to 30-year-old segment gave this characteristic its lowest rating, significantly lower than both the 31 to 40 and the 61 and older age categories. The aged 41 to 50 and 51 to 60 ratings fell between those of the aged 18 to 30 and 31 to 40 segments but were not significantly different than either. The findings were more clear-cut in the 1996 sample, where the 61 and older segment had a significantly higher rating than all other categories. Considering the fact that the ages of the candidates for both samples would fall in the two upper segments, perhaps the youngest voters expect people of that age to slow down, whereas people in or approaching those age brackets like to see that their peers still have the energy to meet the demands of the presidency. Although talking about religious beliefs did not rate very highly in any age group, the trend in the ratings is interesting. Respondents 51 years and older rated this characteristic as significantly more important than did the 18- to 50-year-olds. When com-
pared to the party split on this characteristic, these results are consistent with the perception that Democrats attract younger voters than do Republicans. The results for military experience were about as mixed as were the results for energetic leader. The 31 to 40 segment rated the characteristic significantly higher than either the 18 to 30 segment or the 41 to 50 segment, but the 51 to 60 and the 61 and older segments did not differ significantly from any of those three segments. None of the ratings are very high, perhaps indicating a general indifference toward military experience or that the general electorate did not seem to associate it with character and leadership ability as the parties most often tend to do. Finally, corporate responsibility was a new characteristic this year, and it ranked highly across all age segments. The 51 to 60 segment ranked the item significantly higher than any other segment. This result may indicate that although everyone found this characteristic important, it was more important for the age group whose job prospects and retirement accounts had been hardest hit and had the least amount of potential recovery time. People in this age group who lost their jobs because of outsourcing or to corporate scandals and resulting shutdowns or staff reductions found themselves with few viable options for employment at the same income level. And for the even broader group who, although they may not have been in the employment situation, saw their retirement funds plummet as the effects of corporate scandals such as Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom rippled through the stock market, their time to recoup those losses relative to the time it took to accumulate the funds is limited. The very real impact of corporate scandals was likely felt most sharply in this age segment. As for the 61 and older segment falling more in line with their younger counterparts, perhaps the impact for them was not as great because they were already retired and/or their retirement incomes were more secure.
Conclusions
The present study is the fifth in a series that began with the 1988 primary. Each study has been discussed in terms of the ratings of the importance of characteristics by audiences and media attending rallies. Media members numbering 750 and 1,887 public members for a total 2,637 people responded to questionnaires during the five New Hampshire primaries. The first research question inquires whether the views of individual members of the media regarding the ideal qualities required of presidential candidates differ significantly from those of the public. Evaluations of the importance of candidate characteristics tend not to shift dramatically across campaigns. The two most important attributes remained being honest and talking about the nations problems for both the media and the public throughout the five campaigns, as did having the highest moral character when it was measured in the last four campaigns. Being male was rated low by both throughout the five campaigns. Three characteristics were rated for the first time in 2004. Both the media and the public consider it unimportant that the candidate talk about religious beliefs or be of
the same race I am. Discussing corporate responsibility was considered important by both in 2004. The second research question asks whether the characteristics or criteria of the ideal presidential candidates ascribed by the media or the public vary from election to election. In the eight characteristics measured in all five elections, media ratings remained essentially the same for almost all the attributes in the first 3 years but increased dramatically in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. The number of women in the media sample in 2000 and 2004 increased, but there is no obvious reason to assume a causal relationship. Public mean ratings varied significantly across campaigns for five characteristics. Experience in office was considered more important in 1992, 2004, and especially 2000, but it also received high ratings in the other years. Being male was considered more important in 1988 and 2000, but it was still among the lowest rated ratings; that the candidate be of the highest moral character increased across campaigns from 1992 to 2000, whereas the 2004 rating is very close to its immediate predecessor. In every election, it was rated high. That the candidate should be an aggressive and energetic leader remained consistent between 1988 and 2000 before declining sharply in 2004. Finally, that the candidate should have served in the military was considered more important in 2004 than it was the only other time it was measured, 1996. Differences in the ratings of audience members are not surprising. The composition of the audiences varied from campaign to campaign. When there is an incumbent president running for reelection, there are typically not candidates of his party running against him in the primaries. For example, in 2004, only 29 Republicans were included in an audience sample of 602 because there was no opposition to President Bush. And in 2000, there were more respondents identifying themselves as independents than there were respondents identifying themselves as Democrats. The third research question asks whether the evaluative dimensions of idealness differ by party affiliation, age, or gender. Essentially, the emphasis given individual characteristics remained the same across the five elections. But viewed as a single longitudinal study covering the five campaigns, differences between categories of audience members appear when the importance ratings differ significantly between respondents consistently across elections. Longitudinal examinations of significant differences between the ratings of audience members across elections, who differ on political party or on age, reveal real differences on most issues but are clearly apparent when limited to characteristics, which represent moral values. Party differences in ratings. Republicans consistently rate moral values as more important than do Democratic respondents and they differ significantly. In the 2004 election, Republicans mean ratings of talk about religious beliefs were significantly higher compared to the Democratic mean. In 2000, Republicans scored faithful to spouse, high moral integrity, and spouses moral integrity significantly higher than
Democratic respondents. In 1992, faithful to spouse was rated higher by Republicans. Each of these differences was significant at p < .01. The significantly higher importance Republicans place on their moral values may explain why they are less open to modifying decisions based thereon than are Democratic respondents. It is apparent that Republicans are more likely to hold stronger beliefs that they are right on issues and be more conservative when change is proposed. They can be expected to be more unlikely to consider or even to be exposed to ideas that do not correspond with their values. This is consistent with conventional wisdom but goes beyond to provide a reason change is sometimes viewed negatively by Republicans, whereas some more liberal Democratic viewers might feel less strongly about it. In 2004, Republicans also rated experienced in office, has military experiences, be male, and of the same race significantly higher than Democrats and Independents. But being a forceful public speaker was rated higher by Independents than by either Republicans or Democrats, significantly higher. In the 1996 sample, Democrats rated having experience in office highest whereas Republicans rated being male, of the majority race, finances own campaign, and served in military highest. Younger than 65 and male were rated highest by Republicans in 1992 as were energetic leader, forceful public speaker, and male in 1988. Age differences in ratings. The emphasis given moral values also varies with the age of the public. Older members of the public rate moral values higher than do younger raters. In 2004, audience members older than 51 rated talk about religious beliefs significantly higher than did the younger groups. In 2000, faithful to spouse was rated higher by the 61- to 70-year-old respondents and by those 71 and older, significantly higher than younger participants. Those groups also gave significantly higher ratings to highest moral integrity. Raters aged 61 and older gave significantly higher ratings in 1996 on the characteristics of faithful to spouse, honesty, and highest moral integrity. Calculations of differences in age ratings on morality issues were not made in 1992 and 1988. This would suggest that older people are more likely to resist change in policies that compromise their moral values. Gender differences in ratings. In 2004, males rated being male and being of the same race I am significantly higher than did female respondents. Female respondents rated having high moral integrity higher that did males. In 2000, 1996, and 1992, male respondents rated being male significantly higher. In the 1988 sample, females rated not accused of breaking the law and talks about the nations problems higher than did male respondents. So, in the past four elections, males rated the attributes higher in most instances. To summarize, on most of the attributes rated in five elections during the past 20 years, the highest ratings given various attributes were most often given by elderly, Republican males.
Notes
1. Because of the large sample sizes both across campaigns and within the 2000 campaign subsamples, the chosen level of statistical significance is p < .01 (see also Trent, Mongeau, Trent, Kendall, & Cushing, 1993; Trent, Short-Thompson, Mongeau, Nusz, & Trent, 2001; Trent, Trent, Mongeau, & Short-Thompson, 1997). 2. As was true with the 1988, 1992, and 1996 public subsamples, there were insufficient numbers of participants in the 71 and older age group to form a reliable age category. Therefore, we combined the 61 to 70 and the 71 and older groups into a single 61 and older group.
References
Alsina, C., Davies, P. J., & Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Preference poll stories in the last 2 weeks of campaign 2000: Uses of the massed opinions of numbered citizens. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2288-2305. Atwood, L. E., & Jarvis, D. (1976, April). Media use, candidate image, and voting: A test of new politics emphasis on television. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Portland, OR. Benoit, W. L., & McHale, J. P. (2003). Presidential candidates television spots and personal qualities. Southern Communication Journal, 68, 319-334. Boyer, P. J. (2003, November 17). General Clarks battles. The New Yorker, 79(35), 70-88. Broder, D. S. (2003, March 3-9). Gephardt afresh. The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, p. 3. Carpini, D., & Fuchs, E. R. (1993). The year of the woman? Candidates, voters, and the 1992 elections. Political Science Quarterly, 108, 29-37. Coffey, P. J. (1975). Quantitative measures of bias in reporting of political news. Journalism Quarterly, 52, 551-553. Czepiec, H. (1976). The impact of television news and party identification on candidate image adoption. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus. Day of the Democrats is here. (2004, January 27). Union Leader, p. 1. Edsall, T. B. (1996, April 22-28). A one-sided gender gap: An Emilys list poll finds women leaning toward Clinton and the Democrats. The Washington Post Weekly Edition, p. 14. Eilperin, J. (2003, June 30-July 13). Optimistic despite it all. The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, p. 7. Graber, D. (1971). Press coverage patterns of campaign news: The 1968 presidential race. Journalism Quarterly, 48, 502-512. Hahn, D. F. (2003). Political communication: Rhetoric, government, and citizens. State College, PA: Strata. Hofstetter, C. R., Zukin, C., & Buss, T. (1978). Political imagery and information in age of television. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 562-569. Jamieson, K. H. (2000). Everything you think you know about politics . . . and why youre wrong. New York: Basic Books. Kendall, K. E. (2000). Communication in the presidential primaries. Westport, CT: Praeger. Kepplinger, H. M. (1982). Visual bias in television campaign coverage. Communications Research, 9, 432446. Kern, M. (2001). Disadvantage Al Gore in election 2000: Coverage of issue and candidate attributes, including the candidate as campaigner, on newspaper and television news websites. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2125-2139. Klein, J. (2004, February 9). Why Bush isnt a shoo-in. Time, 163(6), 23. Lawrence, J. (2004, January 22). Dean plans return to who I really am. USA Today, p. 1. Lemann, N. (2002, May 6). The newcomer: Senator John Edwards is this seasons Democratic rising star. The New Yorker, 78(10), 62.
Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 155 Lester, W. (2004, January 29). Exit polls indicate Bush trouble spots. Cincinnati Enquirer, p. A4. Lichter, R. S., & Rothman, S. (1981). Media and business elites. Public Opinion, 4, 42-60. Louden, A. D. (1990). Image construction in political spot advertising: The Hunt/Helms Senate campaign. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Masters, R. D., Sullivan, D. G., Feola, A., & McHugo, G. (1987). Television coverage of candidatesdisplay behavior during the 1984 Democratic primaries in the United States. International Political Science Review, 8, 121-130. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80, 521-540. Moriarty, S. E., & Garramone, G. M. (1986). A study of news magazine photographs of the 1984 presidential campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 728-734. Pike, G. R. (1985, May). Toward a transactional model of political images: Collective images of the candidates of the 1984 election. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Honolulu, HI. Robinson, M., & Sheehan, M. (1983). Over the wire and on TV: CBS and UPI in campaign 80. New York: Russell Sage. Sanders, K. R., & Pace, T. J. (1977). The influence of speech communication on the image of a political candidate: Limited effects revised. Communication Yearbook, 1, 465-474. Stempel, G. H. (1961). The prestige press in two presidential campaigns. Journalism Quarterly, 38, 157163. Stempel, G. H. (1965). The prestige press in two presidential elections. Journalism Quarterly, 42, 15-21. Stempel, G. H. (1969). The prestige press meets the third-party challenge. Journalism Quarterly, 46, 699702. Trent, J. S., & Friedenberg, R. V. (2004). Political campaign communication. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Trent, J. S., Mongeau, P. A., Trent, J. D, Kendall, K. E., & Cushing, R. B. (1993). The ideal candidate. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 225-239. Trent, J. S., Short-Thompson, C., Mongeau, P. A., Nusz, A. K., & Trent, J. D. (2001). Image, media bias, and voter characteristics. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2101-2124. Trent, J. S., Trent, J. D, Mongeau, P. A., & Short-Thompson, C. (1997). The ideal candidate revisited. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 1001-1019. Untruth and consequences. (2003, August 11). Time, 162(3), 13. VandeHei, J. (2004, April 21). Old-school team to sell Kerry as modern centrist. The Washington Post, p. A1. Weaver, D. H., & Wilhoit, G. C. (1992, Fall). JournalistsWho are they really? Media Studies Journal, 6, 63-79. Judith S. Trent, Ph.D., is a professor of communication at the University of Cincinnati where she teaches courses in presidential campaign communication, women in politics, and persuasion. She publishes widely in political communication and is the coauthor of Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). She is a past president of the National Communication Association. Cady Short-Thompson, Ph.D., is an associate professor of communication at Northern Kentucky University. Her primary research interests are political communication and gendered communication. She has published and presented research on political debates, first ladies, women in politics, political advertising, and political campaign communication. Paul A. Mongeau, Ph.D., is a professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State University. His primary research interests include communication in dating relationships and social influence in interpersonal, group, and public contexts. He has published in Journal of Personality and Social
156 American Behavioral Scientist Psychology, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Communication Monographs, and Communication Theory. Maribeth S. Metzler, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of communication at the University of Cincinnati. Her primary research interests include public relations, environmental and risk communication, the social implications of organizations, and communication ethics. Her recent work has appeared in the Handbook of Public Relations, Communication Quarterly, Communication Yearbook, and Encyclopedia of Public Relations. Jimmie D. Trent is professor emeritus of communication at Miami University of Ohio where he taught undergraduate and graduate courses in communication theory and interpersonal communication. His research interests include communication theory, political communication, and theory of argument.

American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Behavioral Scientist 2005 Trent 130 56

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Americanhttp://abs.sagepub.

com/ Behavioral Scientist

The Idealized Presidential Candidate : A Vision Over Time

>> Version of Record - Jul 29, 2005 What is This?

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al.Behavioral 10.1177/0002764205279437 American / Idealized Scientist Presidential Candidate

The Idealized Presidential Candidate

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 131

Focus of the Study

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

132 American Behavioral Scientist

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 133

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

134 American Behavioral Scientist

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 135

Method and Procedure

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

136 American Behavioral Scientist

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

138 American Behavioral Scientist

Comparing Media and Public Subsamples

Ratings of Candidate Characteristics Across Campaigns

Variation Across Campaigns for Media Subsamples

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

140 American Behavioral Scientist

Differences Across Campaigns for Public Subsamples

Media/Public Differences in Evaluations of Candidate Characteristics

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 141

Party Affiliation and Ratings of Candidate Characteristics

Sex Differences in Ratings of Candidate Characteristics

Age Differences in Ratings of Candidate Characteristics

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

142 American Behavioral Scientist

Table 3 Mean Ratings of Presidential Candidate Characteristics, by Party Affiliation of Respondent

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 143

Table 4 Mean Ratings of Presidential Candidate Characteristics, by Sex of Respondent

Media and the Public

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

144 American Behavioral Scientist

Table 5 Mean Ratings of Presidential Candidate Characteristics, by Age of Respondent

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 145

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

146 American Behavioral Scientist

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 147

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

148 American Behavioral Scientist

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 149

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

150 American Behavioral Scientist

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

Trent et al. / Idealized Presidential Candidate 151

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on April 19, 2013

152 American Behavioral Scientist