In this paper, I discuss the area of issue-ownership as it applies to the 2016 presidential primaries. The central discussion of the paper features a tradeoff between viability and issues in primary contests. Viability, which is presented through The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform by Marty Cohen et al. as party elites deciding who should be the nominee, and issues that are salient to primary voters, and thus candidates, which I present as the more likely reason for how nominees are selected. Using a combination of national polls and analysis of candidates’ Twitter feeds, I hope to compare data on who primary and caucus voters support and which issues are important to them. The hypothesis is simple: if candidates stake claims on issues that voters care about and frequently remind voters of that via Twitter, they will receive a bump in the polls.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bu.edu/oai:open.bu.edu:2144/41543 |
| Date | 19 October 2020 |
| Creators | Stern, Andrew John Sigurd |
| Contributors | Christenson, Dino P. |
| Source Sets | Boston University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis/Dissertation |
| Rights | Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds