Do negative advertisements lower voters' evaluations of the targeted candidate? We theorize that there is much to be gained by examining the variance in the content and tone of negative campaign messages and the variance in voters' sensitivity to negative political rhetoric. We employ data from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study to investigate the impact of negative campaigning in U.S. Senate campaigns. We sampled 1,045 respondents in 21 of the 28 U.S. Senate races featuring a majority party incumbent and challenger. In addition to the survey data, we collected contextual data regarding the political advertisements aired during the campaigns and the news coverage of these campaigns in state newspapers. The evidence suggests that the impact of negative information is multifaceted, and under some circumstances, substantial. We find that uncivil and relevant negative messages are the most powerful, especially for people with less tolerance for negative political rhetoric.

In the United States, research suggests that men and women candidates are covered differently by the press. However, few studies compare press coverage of candidates cross-nationally. Systematic comparison of newspaper coverage of male and female candidates during election campaigns in Australia, Canada, and the United States may help illuminate the conditions that exacerbate or dampen gender differences in candidate portrayals. Given the sharp focus on candidates in American campaigns and the relatively lower percentage of women in the Congress, we expect to find the greatest disparities in men's and women's press coverage in the United States. Our findings suggest that across these three democracies, candidates are often portrayed in terms of long-standing gender stereotypes. These gender differences have important implications for voters' perceptions of candidates and may shape widely shared attitudes toward women's role in the political arena.

No abstract

No abstract

In this article, we rely on data from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) to examine the impact of gender for U.S. senators running for reelection. We propose a theoretical explanation for why an incumbent's gender may influence how citizens evaluate senators, and we present empirical evidence showing that people develop distinct impressions of men and women senators during campaigns. In the 2006 election cycle, women senators were viewed more positively than their male counterparts. Some of the advantages women senators enjoyed were consistent with established gender stereotypes. In particular, women senators were viewed as more honest and more caring than male senators. Moreover, women senators were viewed as more competent at dealing with health-care issues. However, we did not find evidence for gender stereotypes that traditionally produce more positive views of male senators. For example, we did not find that male senators were viewed as stronger leaders or more experienced than women senators. People did not view male senators as better able to deal with economic issues.T he number of women holding prestigious elective office in the United States has changed dramatically over the last 30 years. For example, 25 women contested seats for the U.S. Senate in the 1980s. However, only two of the 25 women (8%) were successful: Senator Barbara Mikulski, who ran against another woman in an open seat, and Senator Nancy Kassebaum, who won reelection. In the following decade, the number of women contesting U.S. Senate seats almost doubled to 47 women candidates.