Issue ownership in the 2016 presidential debates

References

• Abbe, O. G., J. Goodliffe, P. S. Herrnson, and K. D. Patterson. 2003. “Agenda-Setting in Congressional Elections: The Impact of Issues and Campaigns on Voting Behavior.” Political Research Quarterly 56: 419–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Against Trump. 2016. National Review 68(2). Accessed 21 February 2016. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace
   Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., and S. Iyengar. 1994. “Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 335–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banwart, M. C., and M. S. McKinney. 2005. “A Gendered Influence in Campaign Debates? Analysis of Mixed-Gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial Debates.” Communication Studies 56: 353–373.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L. 2003. “Presidential Campaign Discourse as a Causal Factor in Election Outcome.” Western Journal of Communication 67: 97–112.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L. 2007. “Own Party Issue Ownership Emphasis in Presidential Television Spots.” Communication Reports 20: 42–50.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L. 2014. Political Election Debates: Informing Voters about Policy and Character. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., and D. Airne. 2005. “Issue Ownership for Non-presidential Television Spots.” Communication Quarterly 53: 493–503.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., D. Airne, and L. Brazeal. 2011. “Determinants of Issue Emphasis in Gubernatorial and Senate Debates.” Human Communication 14: 127–136.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., L. Brazeal, and D. Airne. 2011. “Functional Federalism and Issue Emphasis in Political Television Spots.” Human Communication 14: 383–392.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., and G. J. Hansen. 2004. “Issue Ownership in Primary and General Presidential Debates.” Argumentation and Advocacy: The Journal of the American Forensic Association 40: 143–154.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., G. J. Hansen, and R. M. Verser. 2003. “A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Viewing U.S. Presidential Debates.” Communication Monographs 70: 335–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, W. L., J. R. Henson, and L. A. Sudbrock. 2011. “A Functional Analysis of 2008 American Presidential Primary Debates.” Argumentation: Inquiry and Advocacy 48: 97–110.
   Google Scholar
• Brasher, H. 2003. “Capitalizing on Contention: Issue Agendas in U.S. Senate Campaigns.” Political Communication 20: 453–471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazeal, L. M., and W. L. Benoit. 2008. “Issue Ownership in Congressional Campaign Television Spots.” Communication Quarterly 56: 17–28.
   Google Scholar
• Commission on Presidential Debates. 2012. “Debate History.” Accessed 12/9/12. http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=debate-history
   Google Scholar
• Concordance. 2012. Accessed 4/23/12. http://www.concordancesoftware.co.uk/
   Google Scholar
• Damore, D. F. 2005. “Issue Convergence in Presidential Campaigns.” Political Behavior 27: 71–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henson, J. R., and W. L. Benoit. 2009. “Functional Federalism in Political Campaign Debates.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 39: 696–706.
   Google Scholar
• Jarman, J. W. 2005. “Political Affiliation and Presidential Debates: A Real-Time Analysis of the Effect of the Arguments used in the Presidential Debates.” American Behavioral Scientist 49: 229–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. 2004. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge, England: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. E., and D. L. Shaw. 1972. “The Agenda Setting Function of the Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen. 2016. “Are Americans Watching the Republican or Democratic Debates – or Both?” Accessed 3/21/16. http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/are-americans-watching-the-republican-or-democratic-debates-or-both.html
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, T. E. 2003. The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, P. E. 1995. The Price of Federalism. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petrocik, J. R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 825–850.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrocik, J. R., W. L. Benoit, and G. L. Hansen. 2003–2004. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000.” Political Science Quarterly 118: 599–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfau, M., and H. C. Kenski. 1990. Attack Politics: Strategy and Defense. New York: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• PollingReport.com. 2016. “Democrats vs. Republicans: George Washington University (conducted 4/17–20/16).” Accessed 101/28/16. http://www.pollingreport.com/dvsr.htm
   Google Scholar
• Sigelman, L., and E. H. Buell. 2004. “Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000.” American Journal of Political Science 48: 650–661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, A. F. 2002. The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stelter, B. 2015. “Fox's GOP debate had record 24 million viewers.” CNN, August 7. Accessed 15 June 2016. http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/07/media/gop-debate-fox-news-ratings/
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, D., M. McCombs, and D. L. Shaw. 2004. “Agenda-Setting Research: Issues, Attributes, and Influences.” In Handbook of Political Campaign Research, edited by L. L. Kaid, 257–282. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar