Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation
Abstract
The story of a presidential election year is in many ways the story of the actions and interactions of those considered as possible candidates for their nation's highest office. If this is true in the abstract, it certainly was true in the election of 1968. The political headlines of 1968 were captured by those who ran for the nominations of their parties, those who pondered over whether or not to run, those who chose to pull out of the race or were struck down during the campaign, those who raised a third party banner, and those who resisted suggestions to run outside the two-party structure. While 1968 may have been unusual in the extent to which many prospective candidates dominated the political scene, every presidential election is, in its own way, highlighted by those considered for the office of President. The political scientist has shown scholarly interest in the candidates. His interest, however, has been selective in its focus—mainly concentrating on the two actual party nominees and not the larger set of possible presidential candidates. Research in electoral behavior has detailed the popular image of the nominees in terms of the public's reactions to their record and experience, personal qualities, and party affiliation. Furthermore, attitudes toward the nominees have been shown to constitute a major short-term influence on the vote. Yet attitudes toward other candidates have been surveyed only to ascertain the behavior of those people who favored someone other t…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The feeling thermometer was originally created as a 'neutrally worded means of eliciting responses to a wide variety of candidates'.
“The feeling thermometer was originally created as a 'neutrally worded means of eliciting responses to a wide variety of candidates'”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Weisberg & Rusk 1970
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
- Authors
- Weisberg, H. F., & Rusk, J. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1970-12
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1167-1185
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2335395254
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 73.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › American Political and Social Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
- Keywords
- presidential candidates, candidate evaluation, 1968 presidential election, candidate image, third-party candidates, two-party system, voting behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review