The results suggest that perceptions of Obama\u2019s candidacy among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters tracked closely with key media narratives about him.<\/p>\n\n
That was also the case with GOP candidate McCain, whose ratings among the Republican-aligned population largely dovetailed with both his positive and negative themes.<\/p>\n\n
With Clinton, the verdict was more mixed. Some of the views Democrats hold of the New York senator\u2014particularly regarding her honesty and preparation for leadership \u2014 appear to be based on factors other than the media narratives, a sign that perhaps perceptions of Clinton were solidified well before the campaign began.<\/p>\n\n
There was another notable difference among the candidates. Despite intense campaign coverage and shifting narratives, voters\u2019 perceptions of Obama and Clinton changed little between February and April 2008. In McCain\u2019s case, public opinion on a range of character and leadership issues improved noticeably, even though the coverage of him personally was not particularly positive. It may be that winning is simply its own reward.<\/p>\n\n
These findings do not imply a simple cause and effect. In some cases, the press may have been reflecting existing public attitudes rather than shaping them. In others, the coverage and the public may have arrived at similar conclusions at similar times. And some public perceptions may simply have pre-dated the campaign. Rather it speaks to the extent that press coverage and public views corresponded to each other during the primary battles.<\/p>\n\n
Obama and Clinton<\/h4>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u26\/image010_0.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nDemocrats and Democratic-leaning voters associated Obama over Clinton as \u201cmost likely to bring about change\u201d by a ratio of about to 2-1, and that number increased slightly but not dramatically over time. In February, the margin was 52%-26% and it inched up to 56%-25% in April. The voters\u2019 verdict was about the same in a related question\u2014which of the candidates was more inspiring. Respondents again selected Obama by a 54%-20% margin in February and by virtually the same spread (56%-20%) in April.<\/p>\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u29\/obama_as_change_agentSMALL.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nIn both cases, public sentiment closely tracks the most prominent Obama theme of hope and change, and it may well reflect on the most dominant negative theme about Clinton, that she is the candidate of the status quo and the politics of the past.<\/p>\n\n
If the public saw Obama as a change agent, they also had growing doubts about his readiness for the presidency, tracking with growing press coverage raising that issue. In February, likely Democratic voters viewed the Illinois senator as too inexperienced for the presidency by a 35% to 18% margin over Clinton. By April, the gap had stretched to 42% to 13%.<\/p>\n\n
Several questions seemed to reflect some disconnect between the public and the media coverage. One had to do with which candidate Democrats saw as more honest and trustworthy. In the two primary season surveys, likely Democratic voters clearly saw Obama as more honest, associating this trait with him over Clinton by a margin of about 2-1. Yet in the press coverage, honesty was not an attribute particularly associated much with either candidate. For Obama, indeed, rebuttals about the idea that he is honest and has integrity exceeded the assertions. The narrative thread about Clinton that connects to this question of trustworthiness, the idea that she lacks core beliefs, was also not a major element in the coverage during the time studied.\nThere also seemed to be some disconnect over the question of likeability. In both the February and April surveys, 42% of the respondents said Clinton was hard to like compared with only 9% who said this about Obama. Yet, in press coverage, Clinton appeared to have waged a successful battle against this impression. In short, while the subject of Clinton\u2019s likeability was a major story, with the media coverage split (22% of all assertions dealt with the issue one way or another, but a majority refuted the idea she was not likeable), a large portion of the public had already decided they had her doubts about her.<\/p>\n\n
Shifts over time<\/h4>\n\n
It\u2019s hard to pinpoint when Democratic-leaning voters solidified their views of the candidates, but for the most part, there was little movement between the February and April polls. Opinions persisted despite the sheer intensity of the coverage (the campaign filled 46% of the overall newshole during the weeks studied in the 2008 early primary season).<\/p>\n\n
On at least one key question where public perceptions did change, it seemed to be much more closely tied to actual primary results than any media narratives. In the February poll, Clinton held a 10-point lead (38%-28%) when voters were asked who was more prepared to lead the country. But by April, Obama had inched ahead on the question by a margin 34% to 31%. (This despite the fact that respondents in both polls overwhelmingly named Obama as the Democrat who was too inexperienced for the job.)<\/p>\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u29\/people_press_prepared_to_lead_best_describes_0.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nYet the message that Clinton was prepared to lead on Day One was the most prominent thread in the coverage about her, and it gained strength as time went on. It originated, however, with the candidate herself. In short, despite the coverage of the idea that Clinton was prepared to lead, Obama gained momentum on this question with the public\u2014and this came in the face of substantial coverage of the Clinton camp\u2019s attacks on his lack of experience. Democrats, in other words, seem to discount Obama\u2019s relative inexperience, or believe he is ready to lead the country anyway, despite C<\/p>\n\n
linton\u2019s emphasis on this issue, and sizable media coverage of it as well.<\/p>\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u29\/Clinton_as_prepared_to_leadSMALL.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\nThis sets up a clear question for the fall campaign. Americans have heard a growing chorus of doubts in the media about Obama\u2019s readiness. They are likely to hear more. This has already become a common refrain of the McCain camp, as it was in the Clinton camp. The question is whether that will begin to erode support in a challenge against McCain, or whether Obama\u2019s lack of seasoning is viewed by Americans as simply part of what comes with a candidate who represents a vision something new and different.<\/p>\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u29\/obama_as_too_inexperiencedSMALL.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nJohn McCain<\/h4>\n\n
By and large, there was a solid connection between what the press was saying about John McCain and what the public was thinking about him. Much of McCain\u2019s media narrative improved over time, as the 2007 media primary spilled over into the 2008 voter contests. And by the time the Pew Research Center polled likely Republican voters earlier this year, their view of him on most issues was positive and getting even more positive.<\/p>\n\n
The February and April polls of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents offer a lot of good news for McCain on a series of personal and character issues. But there is one big area of doubt, and it is the same area he has struggled with in the press: The idea that he is not a true conservative. That has been McCain\u2019s dominant media narrative throughout 2007 and in the early part of 2008. And Republicans seem clearly split over this. In the Feb. 8-11 survey, 44% of the respondents agreed with the statement that he is not a true conservative versus 46% who did not. That number only improved marginally, to 40% agreeing and 49% disagreeing, by April. (It is worth noting that the unreliable conservative narrative about McCain did abate in late February and early March.) While slightly more Republicans said it did not describe him, the verdict is clearly still out.<\/p>\n\n
Republican-leaning voters also have come to believe what was in the press coverage about McCain\u2019s character and conviction, the strongest positive theme in the personal narrative about him. That coverage was based largely on assertions from the candidate (27%) but a substantial portion also came from the press (23%). Three-quarters of respondents surveyed in February agreed that the Arizona senator had admirable character, and that number moved up further to 84% in April.<\/p>\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u29\/image011.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nThe question of McCain\u2019s age, another issue in the coverage, also began to diminish somewhat over time. In February, just 19% of those likely Republican voters thought McCain is too old for the job. And by April, it had fallen to 14%. That roughly reflects the trajectory of the media narrative that McCain was too old, which was a significant theme in 2007 coverage but had decreased to less than 2% of the 2008 campaign storyline.<\/p>\n\n
Potential McCain voters appeared to have more concerns about the GOP candidate\u2019s temperament, but they too abated as that issue diminished in his 2008 coverage. The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who said that he can\u2019t control his temper declined from 34% in February 2008 to 25% in April of that year.<\/p>\n\n
The good news for McCain is that in almost every category, potential voters\u2019 perceptions of him\u2014already quite upbeat\u2014grew more positive between the February and April polls.<\/p>\n\n
It\u2019s also true that key aspects of his media narrative improved over time as a campaign once written off by many journalists came back to capture its party\u2019s nomination.<\/p>\n\n
Mitt Romney<\/h4>\n\n
How did personal narratives come into play for Mitt Romney, at one time considered McCain\u2019s chief rival for the GOP nomination but then the first of the final five to drop out?<\/p>\n\n
From January 1 through March 9 (Romney dropped out of the race on February 7 and press coverage largely disappeared by late February) the master narrative about Romney was roughly divided. In all, 53% of the assertions studied about Romney personally were positive in nature, while 47% negative.<\/p>\n\n
There were four main master narratives about the former Massachusetts governor. The most prominent of all was a message that the Romney campaign worked hard to project\u2014the image of Romney as a successful businessman. Fully 31% of all assertions studied about Romney were about this theme.<\/p>\n\n
The other master narrative that Romney was trying to project was more mixed in its success. Key to a Romney candidacy was the ability to persuade voters that he was the true conservative candidate\u2014something that would have distinguished him from McCain. And he had some success in projecting this idea. Roughly one-in-five (21%) of the assertions studied carried this theme.<\/p>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u29\/image012.png\")
<\/figure>\n\nBut the notion that Romney was a true conservative was actually more than matched by a negative master narrative about him that undermined this notion. This was the idea that Romney was an unreliable \u201cflip-flopper\u201d on policy positions. In the end, the notion of the opportunistic flip-flopper outshone the notion that he was a true conservative, making up 26% of the assertions studied about him.<\/p>\n\n
One other less-than-flattering master narrative emerged about Romney: the idea that he was too negative in his campaign style (13%).<\/p>\n\n
The Romney campaign had little success refuting the negative master narratives about his opportunism and malicious campaigning tone. And only 1% of all assertions about Romney studied rebutted negative images (5 statements in all).<\/p>\n\n
In short, Romney failed to blunt the strong negative image developing about him in the press, as a flip-flopper who could be nasty in criticizing his rivals.<\/p>\n\n
\nRomney over Time<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\nSome might imagine that Romney\u2019s master narrative became more troubled as his candidacy lost steam. But that was not the case. Despite an ultimate defeat in the vote, Romney\u2019s presidential hopeful story shows a personal message that grew steadily more positive. What began as a 60-40 tilt to the negative reversed to a roughly 60-40 positive tilt during the time of his withdrawal.<\/p>\n\n
The shift in the tone about Romney was not a case of media remorse once he bowed out. The tone of his narrative message grew most positive in the weeks prior to his departure.<\/p>\n\n
In the first period studied (January 1 \u2013 13), as Romney weathered defeats in both Iowa and New Hampshire, his personal narrative was also battered in the press. Fully 60% of the themes studied about Romney were negative, and the criticism that dominated was Romney\u2019s own negativity. Fully 37% of the assertions focused on Romney\u2019s negative campaigning, spurred largely by a stream of attack ads sponsored by his campaign. During the January 5 debate in New Hampshire, McCain (the subject of most of the attacks) laid into Romney: \u201cYou can spend your whole fortune on your ads and it still won\u2019t be true,\u201d and Giuliani commented that even Ronald Reagan would be in one of Romney\u2019s negative attack ads.<\/p>\n\n
In a \u201cGood Morning America\u201d interview on January 3, interviewer Chris Cuomo asked Romney: \u201cYou have Ed Rollins from the Huckabee campaign saying he wanted to \u2018hit you in the mouth,\u2019 he\u2019s getting so upset at the negative ads. Do you regret a little bit the strategy recently, do you think maybe that\u2019s why you\u2019ve taken a hit in the polls?\u201d Romney coolly answered, \u201cNo actually, I\u2019ve been rising in the polls\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n
But the Romney campaign had a hard time fending off this image, with rebuttals amounting to just 4% of the assertions about him; by the end of this period, the campaign seemed to be abandoning this tactic. Newsweek\u2019s Howard Fineman, commenting on Romney\u2019s speech on January 8, remarked, \u201cWhat else was good about Romney tonight is that he was positive… He was the positive, \u2018decent as the day is long\u2019 guy that a lot of his friends say he really is, as opposed to the guy whose campaign advisors and consultants are feeding him all these negative lines and negative ads.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
From January 14 through February 3\u2014as Romney pulled in a strong win in Michigan, but then came up short on Super Tuesday\u2014he gained back some control over his personal message. There was a slight tilt toward the positive, 53% to 47% negative.<\/p>\n\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n\n
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nDemocrats and Democratic-leaning voters associated Obama over Clinton as \u201cmost likely to bring about change\u201d by a ratio of about to 2-1, and that number increased slightly but not dramatically over time. In February, the margin was 52%-26% and it inched up to 56%-25% in April. The voters\u2019 verdict was about the same in a related question\u2014which of the candidates was more inspiring. Respondents again selected Obama by a 54%-20% margin in February and by virtually the same spread (56%-20%) in April.<\/p>\n\n
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nIn both cases, public sentiment closely tracks the most prominent Obama theme of hope and change, and it may well reflect on the most dominant negative theme about Clinton, that she is the candidate of the status quo and the politics of the past.<\/p>\n\n
If the public saw Obama as a change agent, they also had growing doubts about his readiness for the presidency, tracking with growing press coverage raising that issue. In February, likely Democratic voters viewed the Illinois senator as too inexperienced for the presidency by a 35% to 18% margin over Clinton. By April, the gap had stretched to 42% to 13%.<\/p>\n\n
Several questions seemed to reflect some disconnect between the public and the media coverage. One had to do with which candidate Democrats saw as more honest and trustworthy. In the two primary season surveys, likely Democratic voters clearly saw Obama as more honest, associating this trait with him over Clinton by a margin of about 2-1. Yet in the press coverage, honesty was not an attribute particularly associated much with either candidate. For Obama, indeed, rebuttals about the idea that he is honest and has integrity exceeded the assertions. The narrative thread about Clinton that connects to this question of trustworthiness, the idea that she lacks core beliefs, was also not a major element in the coverage during the time studied.\nThere also seemed to be some disconnect over the question of likeability. In both the February and April surveys, 42% of the respondents said Clinton was hard to like compared with only 9% who said this about Obama. Yet, in press coverage, Clinton appeared to have waged a successful battle against this impression. In short, while the subject of Clinton\u2019s likeability was a major story, with the media coverage split (22% of all assertions dealt with the issue one way or another, but a majority refuted the idea she was not likeable), a large portion of the public had already decided they had her doubts about her.<\/p>\n\n
Shifts over time<\/h4>\n\n
It\u2019s hard to pinpoint when Democratic-leaning voters solidified their views of the candidates, but for the most part, there was little movement between the February and April polls. Opinions persisted despite the sheer intensity of the coverage (the campaign filled 46% of the overall newshole during the weeks studied in the 2008 early primary season).<\/p>\n\n
On at least one key question where public perceptions did change, it seemed to be much more closely tied to actual primary results than any media narratives. In the February poll, Clinton held a 10-point lead (38%-28%) when voters were asked who was more prepared to lead the country. But by April, Obama had inched ahead on the question by a margin 34% to 31%. (This despite the fact that respondents in both polls overwhelmingly named Obama as the Democrat who was too inexperienced for the job.)<\/p>\n\n
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nYet the message that Clinton was prepared to lead on Day One was the most prominent thread in the coverage about her, and it gained strength as time went on. It originated, however, with the candidate herself. In short, despite the coverage of the idea that Clinton was prepared to lead, Obama gained momentum on this question with the public\u2014and this came in the face of substantial coverage of the Clinton camp\u2019s attacks on his lack of experience. Democrats, in other words, seem to discount Obama\u2019s relative inexperience, or believe he is ready to lead the country anyway, despite C<\/p>\n\n
linton\u2019s emphasis on this issue, and sizable media coverage of it as well.<\/p>\n\n
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nThis sets up a clear question for the fall campaign. Americans have heard a growing chorus of doubts in the media about Obama\u2019s readiness. They are likely to hear more. This has already become a common refrain of the McCain camp, as it was in the Clinton camp. The question is whether that will begin to erode support in a challenge against McCain, or whether Obama\u2019s lack of seasoning is viewed by Americans as simply part of what comes with a candidate who represents a vision something new and different.<\/p>\n\n
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nJohn McCain<\/h4>\n\n
By and large, there was a solid connection between what the press was saying about John McCain and what the public was thinking about him. Much of McCain\u2019s media narrative improved over time, as the 2007 media primary spilled over into the 2008 voter contests. And by the time the Pew Research Center polled likely Republican voters earlier this year, their view of him on most issues was positive and getting even more positive.<\/p>\n\n
The February and April polls of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents offer a lot of good news for McCain on a series of personal and character issues. But there is one big area of doubt, and it is the same area he has struggled with in the press: The idea that he is not a true conservative. That has been McCain\u2019s dominant media narrative throughout 2007 and in the early part of 2008. And Republicans seem clearly split over this. In the Feb. 8-11 survey, 44% of the respondents agreed with the statement that he is not a true conservative versus 46% who did not. That number only improved marginally, to 40% agreeing and 49% disagreeing, by April. (It is worth noting that the unreliable conservative narrative about McCain did abate in late February and early March.) While slightly more Republicans said it did not describe him, the verdict is clearly still out.<\/p>\n\n
Republican-leaning voters also have come to believe what was in the press coverage about McCain\u2019s character and conviction, the strongest positive theme in the personal narrative about him. That coverage was based largely on assertions from the candidate (27%) but a substantial portion also came from the press (23%). Three-quarters of respondents surveyed in February agreed that the Arizona senator had admirable character, and that number moved up further to 84% in April.<\/p>\n\n
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\nThe question of McCain\u2019s age, another issue in the coverage, also began to diminish somewhat over time. In February, just 19% of those likely Republican voters thought McCain is too old for the job. And by April, it had fallen to 14%. That roughly reflects the trajectory of the media narrative that McCain was too old, which was a significant theme in 2007 coverage but had decreased to less than 2% of the 2008 campaign storyline.<\/p>\n\n
Potential McCain voters appeared to have more concerns about the GOP candidate\u2019s temperament, but they too abated as that issue diminished in his 2008 coverage. The percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who said that he can\u2019t control his temper declined from 34% in February 2008 to 25% in April of that year.<\/p>\n\n
The good news for McCain is that in almost every category, potential voters\u2019 perceptions of him\u2014already quite upbeat\u2014grew more positive between the February and April polls.<\/p>\n\n
It\u2019s also true that key aspects of his media narrative improved over time as a campaign once written off by many journalists came back to capture its party\u2019s nomination.<\/p>\n\n
Mitt Romney<\/h4>\n\n
How did personal narratives come into play for Mitt Romney, at one time considered McCain\u2019s chief rival for the GOP nomination but then the first of the final five to drop out?<\/p>\n\n
From January 1 through March 9 (Romney dropped out of the race on February 7 and press coverage largely disappeared by late February) the master narrative about Romney was roughly divided. In all, 53% of the assertions studied about Romney personally were positive in nature, while 47% negative.<\/p>\n\n
There were four main master narratives about the former Massachusetts governor. The most prominent of all was a message that the Romney campaign worked hard to project\u2014the image of Romney as a successful businessman. Fully 31% of all assertions studied about Romney were about this theme.<\/p>\n\n
The other master narrative that Romney was trying to project was more mixed in its success. Key to a Romney candidacy was the ability to persuade voters that he was the true conservative candidate\u2014something that would have distinguished him from McCain. And he had some success in projecting this idea. Roughly one-in-five (21%) of the assertions studied carried this theme.<\/p>\n\n But the notion that Romney was a true conservative was actually more than matched by a negative master narrative about him that undermined this notion. This was the idea that Romney was an unreliable \u201cflip-flopper\u201d on policy positions. In the end, the notion of the opportunistic flip-flopper outshone the notion that he was a true conservative, making up 26% of the assertions studied about him.<\/p>\n\n One other less-than-flattering master narrative emerged about Romney: the idea that he was too negative in his campaign style (13%).<\/p>\n\n The Romney campaign had little success refuting the negative master narratives about his opportunism and malicious campaigning tone. And only 1% of all assertions about Romney studied rebutted negative images (5 statements in all).<\/p>\n\n In short, Romney failed to blunt the strong negative image developing about him in the press, as a flip-flopper who could be nasty in criticizing his rivals.<\/p>\n\n \nRomney over Time<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n Some might imagine that Romney\u2019s master narrative became more troubled as his candidacy lost steam. But that was not the case. Despite an ultimate defeat in the vote, Romney\u2019s presidential hopeful story shows a personal message that grew steadily more positive. What began as a 60-40 tilt to the negative reversed to a roughly 60-40 positive tilt during the time of his withdrawal.<\/p>\n\n The shift in the tone about Romney was not a case of media remorse once he bowed out. The tone of his narrative message grew most positive in the weeks prior to his departure.<\/p>\n\n In the first period studied (January 1 \u2013 13), as Romney weathered defeats in both Iowa and New Hampshire, his personal narrative was also battered in the press. Fully 60% of the themes studied about Romney were negative, and the criticism that dominated was Romney\u2019s own negativity. Fully 37% of the assertions focused on Romney\u2019s negative campaigning, spurred largely by a stream of attack ads sponsored by his campaign. During the January 5 debate in New Hampshire, McCain (the subject of most of the attacks) laid into Romney: \u201cYou can spend your whole fortune on your ads and it still won\u2019t be true,\u201d and Giuliani commented that even Ronald Reagan would be in one of Romney\u2019s negative attack ads.<\/p>\n\n In a \u201cGood Morning America\u201d interview on January 3, interviewer Chris Cuomo asked Romney: \u201cYou have Ed Rollins from the Huckabee campaign saying he wanted to \u2018hit you in the mouth,\u2019 he\u2019s getting so upset at the negative ads. Do you regret a little bit the strategy recently, do you think maybe that\u2019s why you\u2019ve taken a hit in the polls?\u201d Romney coolly answered, \u201cNo actually, I\u2019ve been rising in the polls\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n But the Romney campaign had a hard time fending off this image, with rebuttals amounting to just 4% of the assertions about him; by the end of this period, the campaign seemed to be abandoning this tactic. Newsweek\u2019s Howard Fineman, commenting on Romney\u2019s speech on January 8, remarked, \u201cWhat else was good about Romney tonight is that he was positive… He was the positive, \u2018decent as the day is long\u2019 guy that a lot of his friends say he really is, as opposed to the guy whose campaign advisors and consultants are feeding him all these negative lines and negative ads.\u201d<\/p>\n\n From January 14 through February 3\u2014as Romney pulled in a strong win in Michigan, but then came up short on Super Tuesday\u2014he gained back some control over his personal message. There was a slight tilt toward the positive, 53% to 47% negative.<\/p>\n\n \u00a0<\/p>\n\n<\/figure>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u29\/Top_Positive_Romney_Narratives_over_time.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u29\/Top_Negative_Romney_Narratives.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/u29\/image006.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n