This engaging look at presidential candidate images features a wide range of essays that dissect how these images are formed and manipulated during campaigns. As more and more emphasis is placed on a candidate's persona and how it affects our voting decisions, Presidential Candidate Images provides a variety of frameworks and cases for analyzing candidate images in past, current, and future elections. Visit our website for sample chapters!
'Image Bite Politics' systematically assesses the visual presentation of presidential candidates in network news coverage of elections and connects these visual images with shifts in public opinion. The authors highlight the remarkably potent influence of television images when it comes to evaluating leaders.
This engaging look at presidential candidate images features a wide range of essays that dissect how these images are formed and manipulated during campaigns. As more and more emphasis is placed on a candidate's persona and how it affects our voting decisions, Presidential Candidate Images provides a variety of frameworks and cases for analyzing candidate images in past, current, and future elections. Visit our website for sample chapters!
While domestic issues loom large in voters' minds during American presidential elections, matters of foreign policy have consistently shaped candidates and their campaigns. From the start of World War II through the collapse of the Soviet Union, presidential hopefuls needed to be perceived as credible global leaders in order to win elections -- regardless of the situation at home -- and voter behavior depended heavily on whether the nation was at war or peace. Yet there is little written about the importance of foreign policy in US presidential elections or the impact of electoral issues on the formation of foreign policy. In US Presidential Elections and Foreign Policy, a team of international scholars examines how the relationship between foreign policy and electoral politics evolved through the latter half of the twentieth century. Covering all presidential elections from 1940 to 1992 -- from debates over American entry into World War II to the aftermath of the Cold War -- the contributors correct the conventional wisdom that domestic issues and the economy are always definitive. Together they demonstrate that, while international concerns were more important in some campaigns than others, foreign policy always matters and is often decisive. This illuminating commentary fills a significant gap in the literature on presidential and electoral politics, emphasizing that candidates' positions on global issues have a palpable impact on American foreign policy.
The passage of Citizens United by the Supreme Court in 2010 sparked a renewed debate about campaign spending by large political action committees, or Super PACs. Its ruling said that it is okay for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want in advertising and other methods to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. This book provides a wide range of opinions on the issue. Includes primary and secondary sources from a variety of perspectives; eyewitnesses, scientific journals, government officials, and many others.
A political junkie’s guide to the 2020 presidential race Based on original analysis from leading experts on presidential elections, Making of the Presidential Candidates 2020 describes all of the systematic aspects of the nomination campaign today: party rules, fundraising, media attention, voter coalitions, prospects for female candidates, and more. The contributors carefully consider the nature of modern political parties and the ways that expanded parties affect the dynamics of the campaign. The analysis is current up to the 2016 election, including a thorough examination of the most fascinating candidate of recent times: Donald Trump. The only authoritative book on the all-important nominating process, Making of the Presidential Candidates 2020 will be valuable for college courses at all levels as well as practitioners and political junkies who want to understand the fundamental forces that shape nomination campaigns in the modern era.
How the 2016 news media environment allowed Trump to win the presidency The 2016 presidential election campaign might have seemed to be all about one man. He certainly did everything possible to reinforce that impression. But to an unprecedented degree the campaign also was about the news media and its relationships with the man who won and the woman he defeated. Words that Matter assesses how the news media covered the extraordinary 2016 election and, more important, what information—true, false, or somewhere in between—actually helped voters make up their minds. Using journalists' real-time tweets and published news coverage of campaign events, along with Gallup polling data measuring how voters perceived that reporting, the book traces the flow of information from candidates and their campaigns to journalists and to the public. The evidence uncovered shows how Donald Trump's victory, and Hillary Clinton's loss, resulted in large part from how the news media responded to these two unique candidates. Both candidates were unusual in their own ways, and thus presented a long list of possible issues for the media to focus on. Which of these many topics got communicated to voters made a big difference outcome. What people heard about these two candidates during the campaign was quite different. Coverage of Trump was scattered among many different issues, and while many of those issues were negative, no single negative narrative came to dominate the coverage of the man who would be elected the 45th president of the United States. Clinton, by contrast, faced an almost unrelenting news media focus on one negative issue—her alleged misuse of e-mails—that captured public attention in a way that the more numerous questions about Trump did not. Some news media coverage of the campaign was insightful and helpful to voters who really wanted serious information to help them make the most important decision a democracy offers. But this book also demonstrates how the modern media environment can exacerbate the kind of pack journalism that leads some issues to dominate the news while others of equal or greater importance get almost no attention, making it hard for voters to make informed choices.
