IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v53y2023i1p65-84_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Our Issue Positions are Strong, and Our Opponents’ Valence is Weak”: An Analysis of Parties' Campaign Strategies in Ten Western European Democracies

Author

Listed:
  • Bjarnøe, Camilla
  • Adams, James
  • Boydstun, Amber

Abstract

Political parties face strategic decisions about whether to campaign on issue-based appeals, pertaining to debates over such issues as economic, immigration, and environmental policies, versus valence-based appeals, emphasizing leadership attributes, such as character (integrity, honesty, and so on), along with performance, that is, the ability to deliver positive outcomes. To better understand these choices, we analyze parties' national election campaign strategies across ten Western European democracies. We argue for, and empirically substantiate, an: our issues versus their valence effect, that is, that parties' self-presentations will be more issue-based than their presentations of opponents; an extremist party issue focus effect, that is, that parties with more extreme ideologies most strongly emphasize issues over valence in their self-presentations; and a prime ministerial valence focus effect, that is, that prime ministerial parties more strongly self-present on valence. These findings have implications for election outcomes and mass–elite linkages.

Suggested Citation

  • Bjarnøe, Camilla & Adams, James & Boydstun, Amber, 2023. "“Our Issue Positions are Strong, and Our Opponents’ Valence is Weak”: An Analysis of Parties' Campaign Strategies in Ten Western European Democracies," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 65-84, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:53:y:2023:i:1:p:65-84_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123421000715/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:53:y:2023:i:1:p:65-84_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.