The effects of ambiguous rhetoric in congressional elections

• Autores: Kerri Milita, Elizabeth N. Simas, John Barry Ryan, Yanna Krupnikov
• Localización: Electoral Studies: An international Journal, ISSN 0261-3794, Nº 46, 2017, págs. 48-63
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Ambiguity -- whereby candidates make deliberately unclear position statements on key issues -- has long been touted by pundits and political scientists as a smart campaign strategy. In this manuscript, two experiments suggest the usefulness of ambiguous rhetoric on salient issues is overstated. Voters rely on well-publicized partisan positions on political issues as heuristics, a factor that has often been overlooked by the existing literature. This means that an issue will inform a voter's decision even if the candidate speaks ambiguously on it. Further, while ambiguity does not change the voters' perceptions of the candidate's position relative to silence, it does raise the salience of the issue that candidate is attempting to minimize. Hence, for candidates who wish to hide unfavorable positions, silence is a better rhetorical strategy than ambiguity.