“I Didn’t Lie, I Misspoke”: Voters’ Responses to Questionable Campaign Claims

Simas, Elizabeth N.; Murdoch, Doug

doi:10.1017/xps.2019.18

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research may wish to expand on the effects of physical versus non-physical threats, as the literature suggests there might be differences in intensity of attitudes. We find that both types of misconduct shape perceptions of the judge as a threat to the rights of minoritized Given existing work demonstrates racial differences in cue-taking from elite messaging (Kuklinski and Hurley 1994) and public opinion differences in response to questionable statements between male and female political candidates (Simas and Murdoch 2020) In the model this is coded 1-6 where an increase is an increase in Conservatism.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Judges Behaving Badly: Judicial Misconduct and a Threat to Rights

Baker,

Canelo

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unethical behavior among US judges, including sexual misconduct and other forms of discriminatory behavior, is becoming increasingly publicized. These controversies are particularly concerning given the important role judges play in shaping policy pertaining to individual rights. We argue that types of misconduct serve as a signal to the public about potential threats judges may pose to people, particularly groups of people who are marginalized. We use a survey experiment that introduces a judge who has engaged in misconduct to measure if the type of misconduct will influence attitudes on whether the judge poses a threat to the rights of women, racial minorities, and ethnic minorities. Interestingly, we find that judges accused of discriminatory misconduct toward one group are viewed as a threat to rights across the board and are seen as less able to rule fairly on matters pertaining to marginalized people more generally.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Judges Behaving Badly: Judicial Misconduct and a Threat to Rights

Baker,

Canelo

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a person of color, she may have been subject to greater penalties for ambiguity (Piston et al 2018). However, as a woman, Harris may have been assumed to be more honest and less deceptive (Simas and Murdoch 2020). Thus, it is unclear whether Harris was any more or less likely to be helped or harmed by ambiguity than a white or male candidate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medicare for All, Some, or None? Testing the Effects of Ambiguity in the Context of the 2020 Presidential Election

Simas

2021

APSC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political scientists have long contemplated whether candidates are better off taking more ambiguous policy positions. Taking advantage of a lack of clarity in Senator Kamala Harris’s healthcare position, I use an original survey experiment to apply these theories to the case of the 2020 presidential election. I find that ambiguity offers Harris little to no advantage over two of her leading Democratic primary opponents and, among certain subjects, harms her relative to Senator Elizabeth Warren. I also find negative effects on Harris’s favorability relative to President Donald Trump. These results have interesting implications for both the 2020 election and the broader study of candidate rhetoric because they illustrate potential downsides to avoiding clear issue statements.

show abstract

“…The current literature on differential accountability mechanisms for politicians holds that the source of these greater penalties for women originates in two principal places. First, women are penalized more harshly because they have "farther to fall" (Barnes and Beaulieu 2014;Smith, D. Paul, and R. Paul 2007;Simas and Murdoch 2019). Heightened baseline levels of trustworthiness and lower levels of perceived corruption among hypothetical women candidates-though not necessarily for real-world women candidates-leads to a larger scope for sanctions than for male candidates.…”

Section: Voter Accountability Of Minority Candidatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Has Room for Error? An Exploration of Voter Accountability and Non-Traditional Candidates

Rajan¹,

Pao²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that voters often hold politicians accountable for misbehavior. But are non-traditional (Black, gay, and/or female) candidates held to higher standards? Using a vignette experiment (N=~$4,000), we test this question of differential treatment. While we find evidence of outright discrimination, particularly against gay candidates, no evidence of greater penalties for norm violation (corruption or extramarital affairs) emerges. In what we term the “Room for Error Hypothesis,” our findings suggest that—though barrier-breaking candidates do not necessarily face stiffer electoral sanctions—they are less able to withstand even diminished penalties given lower baseline support. Further, we hypothesize that gay candidates received lessened penalties from Republicans when charged with norm violation due to “counter-stereotypic” effects: since norm violations send a signal of candidate conservatism to Republicans, this traditionally “negative” candidate quality works to counteract the perception of non-traditional candidates as liberal.

show abstract

“I Didn’t Lie, I Misspoke”: Voters’ Responses to Questionable Campaign Claims

Cited by 8 publications

References 36 publications

Judges Behaving Badly: Judicial Misconduct and a Threat to Rights

Judges Behaving Badly: Judicial Misconduct and a Threat to Rights

Medicare for All, Some, or None? Testing the Effects of Ambiguity in the Context of the 2020 Presidential Election

Who Has Room for Error? An Exploration of Voter Accountability and Non-Traditional Candidates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About