Roundtable: Early Findings from the 2004 Election

While the 2004 U.S. general election might not have been as controversial as the 2000 “draw,” it still gave us plenty to think about and talk about. There is the always invigorating possibility of solving classic electoral mysteries with new data. The historical contingencies of a particular election and the evolution of the political system can mean that old questions once thought resolved get new and unexpected answers. Then, too, there are new questions to answer – about the impact of popular culture or political humor or new communication forms on public opinion and on political outcomes. Always, we look for ways to make American democracy more viable.

In this roundtable, we feature a series of essays about research and analysis conducted during the 2004 campaign season. Here is some of what they have to say:

Kate Kenski, Senior Analyst, Annenberg Public Policy Center
The 2004 NAES contains three types of survey design: (1) the national rolling cross-section or RCS, (2) panel studies around key events, such as the major party conventions, the presidential debates, and the general election, and (3) independent cross-sections, including a study of military families....In addition to candidate favorability ratings, trait ratings, vote intention, issue positions, party identification, ideology, and a detailed set of demographic items, the survey contains comprehensive sets of news media exposure and attention items, candidate knowledge items, an absentee/early voting battery, and much more....For researchers less interested in the dynamic effects of campaign, the NAES is nevertheless useful because it possesses an incredibly large sample size coupled with a detailed demographic battery, therefore providing the potential to study small subgroups. [Full article]

J. Brian Houston, Ph.D. Student, University of Oklahoma
The complexity of the modern media environment is why it is becoming increasingly important for researchers to look at...the totality of political information. Research that focuses on a single communication form does not account for media influence as it exists in the real world, a world in which numerous communication forms likely have simultaneous influence....Two surveys were conducted so that the relative influence of all communication forms could be measured both early and late in the election cycle....The research attempted to assess the relative influence of each communication form while simultaneously controlling for the influence of all others forms, and after extracting the influence of relevant socio-demographic variables. [Full article]

David M. Ryfe, Assistant Professor of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University
For those of us invested in the idea that campaigns might be more deliberative exercises, we shouldn’t minimize the difficulties of making this happen. Significant obstacles of the kind I have just listed stand in the way of such changes. Even still, I believe that some things can be done to improve the situation. As a start, we might recognize that deliberative thinking arises out of an interrelationship of three conditions: civic knowledge/skills; motivation; and, civic culture. Put simply, people must have a certain base level of skills and knowledge even to begin reflecting intelligently on their choices. But they also must have the motivation to adopt this pose, and to retain it even when the going gets difficult. [Full article]