Citation
Where You Go Matters: Examining Presidential Speeches by Location

Material Information

Title:
Where You Go Matters: Examining Presidential Speeches by Location
Creator:
BOW, SHANNON L. ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Area of dominant influence ( jstor )
Census regions ( jstor )
Congressional elections ( jstor )
Electoral college ( jstor )
Political campaigns ( jstor )
Political parties ( jstor )
Presidential elections ( jstor )
Reelection ( jstor )
Speeches ( jstor )
State elections ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Shannon L. Bow. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
5/31/2011
Resource Identifier:
660033337 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

WHERE YOU GO MATTERS: EXAMINING PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHES BY LOCATION By SHANNON L. BOW A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

Copyright 2007 by Shannon L. Bow

PAGE 3

To everyone who has supported me through the years on my path towards this goal.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my faculty at University of Louisville who supported me and provided an excellent undergraduate and graduate grounding and encouraged me to pursue a doctorate. I would like to thank the travel agency I worked for during my bachelors and masters at University of Louisville for funding my education there. I would especially like to thank the faculty at the University of Florida for allowing me the freedom to explore topics I found interesting. I deeply appreciate their understanding as I shifted areas of academic interest and all the faculty who encouraged this process. I especially appreciate my committee for always pushing me to become a better academic. In particular, I would like to thank Larry Dodd for his constant guidance and support throughout this entire project. I am also grateful to Peggy Conway. This project would not have been possible without her willingness to read drafts and provide insight and help every step of the way. I would also like to thank Lynda Lee Kaid, Beth Rosenson, and Renee Johnson. Their encouragement and support of my work has been invaluable in shaping this project. I also would like to thank my family, who encouraged my pursuit of a doctorate and were always proud of my progress even if they did not understand what I was talking about at times. I would finally like to thank my husband Bill. I admire his intelligence, insight, and pragmatism. He also has been a strong force in endorsing my completion of this dissertation. 1

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................1 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................3 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................4 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................7 2 YEARLY PATTERNS IN SPEECHMAKING.....................................................................33 3 UNITED STATES CENSUS REGIONS ...............................................................................46 4 MEDIA MARKETS...............................................................................................................59 Media Markets ........................................................................................................................61 Why Are Market Areas Important? ........................................................................................62 5 ELECTION ONLY SPEECHES AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE.......................................80 Going Public ...........................................................................................................................80 Permanent Campaign ..............................................................................................................82 Census Regions .......................................................................................................................86 Media Markets ......................................................................................................................100 Electoral College ..................................................................................................................108 6 SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................122 Trends across Administrations .............................................................................................125 The Numbers of Speeches .............................................................................................125 Yearly Patterns ..............................................................................................................128 Census Regions .............................................................................................................131 Media Markets ...............................................................................................................133 Electoral College ...........................................................................................................135 Election Only Speeches ........................................................................................................137 Census Regions .............................................................................................................137 Media Markets ...............................................................................................................139 Electoral College ...........................................................................................................140 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................141 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................150 2

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Percentage of first term speeches given in Washington, DC .............................................15 2-1 Total number of first term speeches in Public Papers........................................................34 2-2 Yearly distribution of speeches within first terms and Washington, DC..........................44 3-1 Census regions...................................................................................................................50 3-2 First term speeches by census region & DC, foreign speeches, and residence.................51 3-3 Speeches in census regions excluding DC, foreign and presidential residence.................53 3-4 Census regional speeches by presidential administration (excluding DC)........................54 4-1 Percent of first term speeches in ranked media markets....................................................64 4-2 Percent of total first term speeches in ranked media markets by yearly counts................66 4-3 Percentage of speeches by size of media market by year of presidential administration....................................................................................................................71 5-1 Percentage of election type speech in first term administrations.......................................87 5-2 Percent of first term election only speeches in census regions..........................................90 5-3 Percent of election speeches in census regions by election only type speeches................93 5-4 Percentages of election type only speeches by census region by presidential administration by year........................................................................................................95 5-5 Percentages of first term election only speeches by media market rank.........................100 5-6 Percent of speeches in ranked media markets by election only type speeches................102 5-7 Percentages of election type speeches by media market by presidential administration..................................................................................................................105 5-8 Percent of total speeches in Electoral College states won by party.................................109 5-9 Yearly total speeches by Electoral College outcomes.....................................................111 5-10 Percentages of first term election speeches by Electoral College results........................114 5-11 Yearly percentages of election only speeches by Electoral College results....................117 3

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Yearly first term speeches by volume including Washington, DC ....................................38 2-2 Yearly first term speeches by volume excluding Washington, DC...................................41 4-1 First term speeches by media market.................................................................................63 4

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy WHERE YOU GO MATTERS: EXAMINING PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHES BY LOCATION By Shannon L. Bow May 2007 Chair: Larry Dodd Major: Political Science This project analyzes where presidents give sp eeches during their first terms in office. By using the geographical location of speeches, this dissertation demonstrates there are very clear and stable patterns within election-oriented speec hmaking for most presidents. Presidents are fully aware that the press corps closely scrutinize s their public movements, words, and activities. Though presidents have increased their total speeches ove r the past forty years, they no longer solely rely upon the national media to convey the message to the American people. Presidents utilize local media outlets and regi onal addresses to connect with the citizenry. This dissertation posits regionalism within pres idential speeches goes beyond geographic boundaries. Nielsen’s Designated Market Areas (DMAs), newspaper circulations, radio markets, and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) bette r predict population concentrati ons. This project provides evidence that most presidents alter speechmaking during their reelection campaign years, visiting smaller media markets at a significantly higher ra te while largely ignoring the same size markets in other years. This dissertation also looks at speeches using Electoral College returns. Instead of simply organizing the country into "red" or "blue" states, this research adds an additional nuance by looking at swing states over a 35year period. We find most Am erican presidents, with the 5

PAGE 9

exception of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, give the majority of their first term speeches in states that soundly won by their political party in the previous presidential election. Carter and George W. Bush are exceptional because they concentrated the majority of their speeches in swing states. By further exploring only campaign speeches, we find these patterns are even more pronounced. Through the use of yearly patterns, census regions, media markets, and Electoral College results, this dissertation argues both the premise of going public and the permanent campaign are not as clear cut as most researchers believe. My work finds the nature of going public has dramatically shifted in recent years away from national audiences into more local ones. In addition, my work finds that presidents do not permanently or continuously campaign, and campaign in cycles. 6

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The United States presidency occupies a special status within American society. On one hand, the presidency is a branch of the national government as designated by the American Constitution. In this sense, the office has defined powers and limitations. However, this written contract fails to capture the true nature of the evolving power of the executive. It is the only branch of the American government headed by a solitary person. Though not a monarch, this individual is simultaneously a person, position, and branch of government. The presidency exists as a multilayered entity that cannot easily be teased apart into compartmentalized entities. The person occupying the office functions both as the head of state and the chief executive. Ceremonial and administrative duties fall squarely upon our president’s shoulders. They are ideally supposed to represent our nation in various social functions while managing the entire executive branch bureaucracy. As conceived in Article I of the United States Constitution, the legislative branch wields a tremendous amount of power. Traditionally, many scholars consider this branch as the most powerful of the three. Our founding fathers were deeply concerned about the emergence of a monarch. As a result, they vested the majority of authority into the legislative branch with the idea of power being diffused among the electorate. All systems, however, need leaders to organize and guide ideas into actualizations. Within the Congress, the formal and informal leadership structure developed, and over time, institutionalized into a set hierarchy governing member interaction and activity. The legislative branch, however, has often been involved in power struggles with the executive branch. While our founders were apprehensive about a powerful executive, they also understood a single president was also psychologically important for the country. Voters 7

PAGE 11

demand accountability, and an elected president provided a figurehead for the public to galvanize around and look towards as the ultimate voice of the people. Over the years, the American presidency has grown in power disproportionate to its original Constitutional provisions. Structurally, the development of the bureaucracy allowed for the executive branch to exert a tremendous amount of influence upon the federal government. As presidents have transitioned away from their role as “chief clerk” (Skowronek, 1997), they challenged the legislative branch’s historical dominance of government. The public looks to the president for guidance and leadership as the country’s primary elected official. This fluidity of executive responsibility lends itself towards a flexible model of leadership. Presidents throughout history mold the branch and office to suit their current administration’s needs. Because of the diverse responsibilities held by the executive, the sitting president regularly sees to the obligations of the office through personal appearances, speeches, meetings, executive orders, messages, or other means to communicate his opinions and preferences. It is difficult, however, to distill all presidential actions into uniform categories. Each executive has brought their own distinctive style to the office along with personal proclivities towards specific methods of public interaction. Some, like Eisenhower and Nixon, preferred a more formal White House, while Carter and Clinton gravitated towards a more collegial one. Within all the uniqueness and idiosyncratic behavior of administrations, are there patterns across time we can observe? Can we compare presidencies to see certain aspects are stable across administrations and if changes have occurred over the years? Is it feasible to treat presidential administrations as units of comparison rather than exceptional events without counterparts? When presidents choose to speak in public, they do so for a variety of reasons. Many explanations exist, but they include announcing policy, recognizing individuals, informing the 8

PAGE 12

country, and building support. Location of a public speech often indicates the motivation and rationale for the activity. If we assume presidents have the ability to give as well as refrain from speechmaking, the act itself has implications of intentional activity. Presidents speak because they have grounds for doing it. Sometimes it can be as innocent as presenting an award, but other times it may involve building support for national programs, international military action or personal power. My dissertation focuses upon the growing importance of speech frequency and location from Richard M. Nixon through George W. Bush. Presidents are often only as powerful as their ability to align support for their policies. Though presidents have dramatically increased the total volume of speeches over the past forty years, do they rely upon the national media to convey the messages or do they utilize local media outlets and regional addresses to connect with the citizenry? What can be added to the academic study of the presidency that offers an informative, yet innovative approach to better understanding the office? My work puts forward an alternate, yet conventional course that employs common gauges of measurement in innovative ways within the body of presidential studies. My dissertation examines regionalism in presidential rhetoric. Presidents are often only as powerful as their ability to align support for their policies. Competing ideologies over the role of the president has seesawed the balance of power back and forth between the Congressional and Executive branches during the 19 th and 20 th centuries. In the twentieth century, presidential dominance emerged and has never been subjugated. The American president acts as the lead policy maker within the hearts and minds of most citizens. The underlying theory within much of the rhetorical presidency literature relies upon the presumption the president primarily addresses national audiences. 9

PAGE 13

Though presidents have increased their total speeches over the past forty years, they no longer solely rely upon the national media to convey the message to the American people. Presidents utilize local media outlets and regional addresses to connect with the citizenry. My analysis offers a close, comparative and historical analysis of regionalized presidential speechmaking. My research borrows some methods utilized in marketing research to identify and explain regional patterns of speechmaking and underscores the importance of regional appeals to the ‘rhetorical presidency.’ My research explores several basic questions about modern presidential speechmaking. First, has the basic nature of presidential speechmaking changed over time? Chapter Two examines the volume of speeches on a yearly basis and establishes a new pattern of yearly speechmaking that emerged after the Nixon administration with the basic pattern continuing through today. In particular, my research begins to question the existence of the permanent campaign, with evidence indicating that almost all modern presidential speechmaking is cyclical in nature, both during and not during election periods. Second, can we determine whether any consistent patterns of speech location exist across presidencies? My dissertation will offer a critique of many existing methodologies involving regionalism within political science, paying particular attention to the use of census areas. Chapter Three presents these research findings through the lens of the U.S. Census, highlighting both its usefulness and its weaknesses and a way to collate findings. In addition, my work suggests the alternative as well as an additional gauge of media markets as a means to explain presidential choice in location for speechmaking. Chapter Four explores the usage of media markets as a means to better understand where presidents choose to speak throughout the United States. If presidents do prefer certain media market sizes to others, 10

PAGE 14

what types of speeches occur there? Do they use certain sized markets primarily for campaigning, policy announcements, or consensus building publicity stops? Chapter Five examines first terms of the American presidencies (Nixon through George W. Bush) with an analysis of speech types within specific media markets. It intends to add greater nuance to existing models of presidential speechmaking. Through media markets and use of speech types (i.e., election speech), this work shows clear patterns in how and when presidents choose to talk in different parts of the United States. By comparing and contrasting speeches organized by more conventional census areas and the less traditional media markets, this project unearths some striking and surprising results. Unquestionably, the volume of presidential speeches over the past fifty years has exploded. Chief executives give public speeches almost constantly, talking on a variety of topics ranging from mundane to vital issues impacting life in America. However, do presidents give preferential treatment to specific areas of the United States? Over the past thirty years, a body of literature has emerged around the continuous, or permanent campaign of presidential administrations. In the world of the continuous campaign, presidents theoretically never cease the campaigning process. Nixon in March 1971 said to Haldeman “The staff doesn't understand that we are in a continuous campaign” (Gould, 2003). Polling public opinion becomes paramount, and every speech has some sort of audience. In short, the field suggests administrations never disengage from campaigning. This implies presidents maintain the same level of speechmaking during non-election years as they do within periods of re-election. My work suggests this premise may be flawed. My findings indicate Nixon indeed engaged in permanent campaigning during his entire time in office. Much of the early research on continuous campaigning emerged during or soon after his presidency. 11

PAGE 15

However, his administration appears to be the exception rather than the norm for subsequent chief executives. Nixon was, in retrospect, less of a model and more of an outlier for generalized behavior in office. Because the volume of speeches exploded following the Nixon presidency, an assumption was made that others were behaving in a similar matter, but the explosion in quantity clouded their true behavior. In reality, every presidency post Nixon has engaged in cyclical speechmaking, seriously altering their previous patterns during election seasons, particularly during their own reelection periods. The sheer number of speeches often swamps these dramatic changes, but when filtered by census areas or media markets, the distinctive and pervasive patterns of cyclical speechmaking emerge. By using an additional final lens of Electoral College success, we can also see presidents choose and prefer relying on their bases of support. My project also integrates swing states into the Electoral College assessment. It will show that George W. Bush, in particular, focused on swing states at a far higher level than any other president. Recent presidents have seriously altered the ways in which they ‘go public.’ The underlying theory within much of the rhetorical presidency literature relies upon the notion the president primarily addresses national audiences. Several scholars (Kernell, 1997; Tulis, 1987) pay careful attention to presidents’ interaction with media and the public but their focus centers on national level appeals. My research shows the latest administration appears to depart from national speeches and thus has reformulated the nature of ‘going public.’ Kernell’s book, Going Public: New Strategies for Presidential Leadership , first published in 1986, engages this material during a period of heightened presidential speechmaking in Washington, DC. While the concept of ‘going public’ has been an institution within American research for about 20 years, my 12

PAGE 16

research offers clear evidence George W. Bush has broken with the tenets of this idea and interacts with the public in a completely new, localized speechmaking model. Overview of the Literature. As the 20 th century saw the rise of the institutional presidency, the public engaged in perhaps its most intimate relationship between the person and population. Radio and later television transitioned the president from an abstract office to friend and ally. Verbal and video communication promoted the presidency in new ways to the American public. Presidential activities were no longer solely chronicled in third person newspaper articles or theatrical newsreels. Chief executives explained, justified, or appealed directly to individual voters inside their homes. Successful presidents transcended the divide between the conceptual and tangible in the psyches of their constituents. Thus, presidential authority arises from the chief executive choosing specific points in time to act. Presidents are fully aware the press corps closely scrutinizes their public movements, words, and activities. People want to know intimate details about the president, and astute leaders use this desire at opportune moments for their advantage. “The presidency is a battering ram, and the presidents who have succeeded most magnificently in political leadership are those who have been best situated to use it forthrightly as such” (Skowronek, 1997:28). Chief executives use their sway over the media and other outlets to get their message out without expending too many resources. “Rhetorical power is a very special case of executive power because simultaneously it is the means by which an executive can defend the use of force and other executive powers and it is a power itself” (Tulis, 1987:203). The language of a president sends clear indications of justifications for action as well as his power over the decision itself. “A successful rhetorical president has become so by developing three resources: public 13

PAGE 17

trust, an image of managerial competence, and a coherent rhetoric that unites trustworthiness and competence into a vision that coordinates public choices” (Smith and Smith, 1994: 222). American presidents have understood the appeal of direct communication with the public. President Coolidge was the first president to address the nation from the White House in 1924. In fact, during his run for the presidency that same year, Coolidge gave his final campaign speech on the radio, garnering the largest listening audience of any broadcast to date. President Franklin Roosevelt most notably employed radio broadcasts with his ‘Fireside Chats.’ Thirty speeches spanning between 1933 and 1944, the Fireside Chats humanized an American president in ways no previous administration had achieved. The term was coined because Roosevelt sought to cultivate an image of him actually sitting in the living room of individual citizens informally conversing about his policies and actions. These talks were enormously successful in forging a new relationship between the public and presidency. People viewed Roosevelt as a friend and partner who took the time to carefully explain his strategies in clear, but straightforward terms. Television further served to amplify the president’s relationship with the American public. Though Franklin Roosevelt was the first president to appear regionally on television in 1939, at the opening of the World’s Fair on Long Island, Harry Truman was the first president to have an address nationally broadcast in 1951. Neither president, however, used television as a mechanism to directly connect with the public. It was Dwight Eisenhower who pioneered the application of television to bring his message to Americans. Between 1952 and 1956, television ownership grew from 37 percent to 76 percent (Allen, 1993). Starting in 1953, Eisenhower gave regular televised news conferences, interacting with reporters and answering their questions. Like Roosevelt with radio, he saw this new medium as a way to manage his image and foster a bond between him and the public. There 14

PAGE 18

was an additional advantage. By the time he sought reelection in 1956, Dwight Eisenhower was not in the best of health. Between his heart attack in 1955 and intestinal surgery in June 1956, Eisenhower needed a way to conserve his energy and health (Allen, 1993) during the election campaign. The Republican Party turned to television as a novel approach to interject Eisenhower into American homes with minimal commitment from the ailing chief executive. Television campaign commercials cultivating image of health put Eisenhower into practically every American household. The television approach succeeded, with Eisenhower winning in a landslide. In the early years of both radio and television, presidents drew large audiences, and used the tools as a way to avoid exhaustive travel. Franklin Roosevelt’s paralysis and Dwight Eisenhower’s declining health inhibited them from vigorously engaging in speaking tours throughout the country. Both saw their respective communication mediums as their best means for ‘going public’ to the American people. In fact, during the 1956 campaign, Eisenhower was only away from Washington for 13 days, 6 of which were devoted to stops explicitly for television appearances (Allen, 1993). TABLE 1-1 Percentage of first term speeches given in Washington, DC President Percentage Truman 37.7 Eisenhower 56.1 Kennedy 66.5 Johnson 76.4 Nixon 54.7 Ford 44 Carter 60.9 Reagan 68.5 Bush 41 55.6 Clinton 60.6 Bush 43 51.1 15

PAGE 19

With the exception of Truman’s first term and Ford’s administration, every president after FDR has given over 50 percent of all speeches in each four-year term in Washington, DC. This number primarily suggests presidents conduct a large portion of the public discourse in the nation’s capital. In many ways, the focus should be self-evident, considering presidents in modern times use the White House as not only a residence, but also their seat of power. The White House functions not only as a home for the chief executive, but also as a base of operation. Both the West Wing and nearby Executive Office Buildings house employees within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and the Executive Branch bureaucracy. These staffers exist to better inform the chief executive and perform the duties of the branch. It is natural, therefore, to assume presidents tend to give the bulk of their speeches within the Washington, DC vicinity. Percentages, however, are different than quantity. Broadly speaking, each American president speaks more frequently than his predecessor. Exceptions exist, but usually these outliers involve extraordinary circumstances like the premature resignation of Nixon during his second term. For example, Washington, DC public speeches from Truman though Nixon average about 400 a four year administration. On the other hand, Ford though George W. Bush average around 1060 DC speeches a term. During the exact same frames, the percentages of DC speeches decline from around 61 to 57 percent. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton gave over 60 percent of their public speeches in that city. Reagan epitomized the image of a presidency that spent a majority of its time either in DC or presidential residences. He spent a considerable amount of time at either Camp David or his personal home at Rancho del Cielo in California. Presidents seem to prefer to use tools at their disposal with which they are most comfortable. Reagan, a product of 16

PAGE 20

the motion picture studio system, gave the most speeches in DC since Lyndon Johnson’s second term. Public speeches in Washington, DC give the chief executive a tremendous level of control over his public image. During Reagan’s first term 85 percent of all Washington speeches (85 percent in also second term) were given from the White House or the Executive Office Building. This suggests perhaps Reagan preferred a cultivated and controlled setting to a less defined one in the Washington, DC area. Other presidents since then have also largely adhered to a similar percentage of DC speeches within the White House or Executive Office buildings. Speeches in these locations grant a tremendous level of control for both security and access. In this ‘bubble’ within DC, chief executives can more easily convey information they want while risking little to their public image. Ultimately, what do numbers imply? Presidents speak more, but have largely concentrated fewer of their speeches in the Washington, DC area since the Reagan presidency. Notable exceptions of decreased DC speeches include Nixon and Ford, but these administrations also have palpable rationales for avoiding the press corps (i.e., Watergate). What does this mean for going public? Has the concept of going public shifted since Kernell’s original work, and if so, how? If we agree presidents indeed ‘go public’ during their presidencies, can we look at the process in differing ways? During their terms in office, presidents have the ability to speak anywhere and generally on any topic. Where the president speaks publicly, the speech will draw attention from a local, if not national or international audience. When a president makes the choice to speak, it becomes a matter of public record, permanently archived in his public papers. Every president carefully chooses his words on most occasions, scripted or unscripted. Additionally, when a president makes the choice to speak in a particular location, it can be inferred the administration or the 17

PAGE 21

man has made a conscious choice to interact with the public or media. Sometimes, it is not as important what he says, as where he says it. Has the president decided to draw attention to a locale for a specific policy purpose, or is he attempting to connect with a specific public? Richard Neustadt states in Presidential Power , “presidential power is the power to persuade” (Neustadt, 1960:vi). Neustadt offers what can best described as suggestions for presidents on the nature of power and the challenges of governing. If presidential power truly is the ‘power to persuade,’ how does that influence manifest itself? Many point to the power behind rhetoric as a focal point for his authority. However, is presidential rhetoric the same as the rhetorical presidency (Medhurst, 1996)? The former examines the actuality while the latter refers to a broader theoretical approach to conceptualizing the public actions of chief executives. Carefully chosen words wield tremendous power if implemented effectively. However, does language lose its sway when comes to resemble a cacophony of information? “One of the great ironies of the modern presidency is that as the president relies more on rhetoric to govern, he finds it more difficult to deliver a truly important speech, one that will stand by itself and continue to shape events” (Ceaser et al., 1981:164). Ceaser et al. (1981) prescribe a change in the character of rhetoric. They suggest presidents, referring specifically to Carter, should speak less, and thereby cause their words to carry more weight (169). Over the past twenty years, if anything, presidents speak more than ever. “The greatest loss from the evolution of the rhetorical presidency has been a decrease in the integrity of the word” (Gelderman, 1997:177). American presidents’ appearances are more frequent (Althaus et al., 2002), but researchers question how much the public actually listens to their messages. At one time, television appeared to offer the president the ideal way to send his message out to the national American public. In March 1969, Nixon’s prime time press conferences were 18

PAGE 22

watched by 59 percent of American television households. By 1995, only 6.5 percent of households viewed prime time news conferences (Baum and Kernell, 1999:99). What caused this shift to occur? More important, how has this change affected presidential rhetoric? Theodore Windt (1986) suggests the “technological media era of politics has created a new ‘checks and balances’ Congress now serves principally has a legislative check on the presidency, and media news – primarily television – functions as a rhetorical check on presidential pronouncements” (110). With the decline of national viewers, when televised, presidents rely more upon image than content. Image appeal overrides content thus making national speeches less content driven (Gelderman, 1997:176). In short, television has become “our emotional tutor” (Hart, 1999:viii) offering intimacy without any personal involvement. Richard Nixon once wrote, “the media are far more powerful than the president in creating public awareness and shaping public opinion, for the simple reason that the media always have the last word” (Nixon, 1978:355). National speeches allow for instantaneous criticism of the president’s address. Analysis often exists as thinly veiled denigration without the capacity for rebuttal. “Flippant and insinuating comments by television personalities have, on such occasions have a way of undermining presidential authority” (Livingston, 1986:29). Recent scholarship (Lim, 2002; Welch, 2003; Edwards, 2003) suggests that the televised ‘bully pulpit’ may not be as powerful as many people think. Many Americans rely upon sound bites or recaps to learn about the content of presidential speeches. Studies indicate content retention is much lower for these people than ones who watch the speech in its entirety. “For a president to be successful using a televised address to communicate his message to the American people, it is essential they watch the address rather than rely on the stories on television, radio, 19

PAGE 23

and newspapers that edit, interpret and include counterarguments to the president’s remarks” (Welch, 2003:362). Elvin Lim (2002) finds that over time, presidents have changed the way they speech in an attempt to appeal to listeners. “Contemporary presidential rhetoric may have become more conversational and anecdotal, but it has brought the orator down from the pulpit to a closer intellectual and emotional rapport with his audience” (Lim, 2002:348). Presidents use speeches both to “manipulate their popularity ratings” (Cohen, 1999:53) and “lead public opinion on specific policies” (Cohen, 1999:54). While a wealth of scholarship exists on agenda setting (Brace and Hinckley, 1993; MacKuen, 1983; Ostrom and Simon, 1985, 1988, 1989; Kernell, 1997; Edwards, 1983; Mondak, 1993; Page and Shapiro, 1984; Rosen, 1973; Thomas and Sigelman, 1985; Thomas and Bass, 1982; Ragsdale, 1984, 1987) little to nothing has been done analyzing locations of speeches. Granted, presidents wield a wealth of resources associated with the office. Cohen (1999:54-55) accurately points out the inter-personal skills of the office holder makes the utilization of these resources highly variable from occupant to occupant. Presidents are neither passive nor incompetent media managers. In light of the difficulties of national addresses, a shift has inevitably occurred towards regional media. Local media sources offer both an escape from national commentary and an attempt to re-forge connections to alienated voters. Why would presidents go into local areas to address the public? Some suggest local news provides more positive coverage than national outlets (Shaw and Sparrow, 1999). “The negativity and process orientation of national news coverage encourage (presidential) candidates to take their campaign on the road where they can general intense local media coverage in strategically chosen locations and wrest control of the political agenda from the national media” (Althaus et al., 2002). Local audiences have become of paramount importance 20

PAGE 24

particularly to the George W. Bush administration. Local speeches, in many cases, have supplanted long-standing patterns of both concentrated DC speeches, as well as speeches in the largest media areas of the United States. Power derives from the importance others place upon your thoughts, ideas, and agendas. People often seek power as a means to influence society in their own vision. One of the more focal ways to achieve this status is through winning public office. Elections in the United States often serve as validation for ideology. Victorious candidates consider their electoral successes as a mandate for the implementation of their ideas. The more powerful the office, the more powerful we consider the person occupying it. Political elections are essentially collective action problems. “Collective action results from changing combinations of interests, organization, mobilization, and opportunity” (Tilly, 1978:7). The goal of the political contest usually involves winning more votes than your opponent. However, turnout is more complex than simply trying to get the most supporters to turn out and cast ballots. “Turnout, defection, and abstention” (Leege et al., 2002:9) are all objectives for successful political appeals. It is not enough to simply positively influence turnout in one candidate’s favor. In close elections, every person who identifies with another party who can be influenced to stay away effectively is a vote for your party. Leege et al. (2002) assert presidential candidates attempt to minimize turnout by encouraging the opposition’s supporters to stay home. Through honing in on ideas and values, savvy candidates can sway their core to turn out while simultaneously dissuading others away from the polls. The implications of this dynamic idea are enormous. Presidential speechmaking seeks to situate the populace in a retrospective voting mindset (Fiorina, 1983). Retrospective voting encourages the constituent to evaluate the performance of the incumbent without seeking out 21

PAGE 25

information about the challenger. Presidential speeches effectively demand the same thought process out of the populace. If Fiorina (1983) and Leege et al. (2002) are correct, the president aims at developing just enough cross-partisan collegiality to discourage some voters inclined to disagree with him from either seeking out additional information or voting (depending on the timing of the speech). Cohen (1963) puts forth the concept of agenda setting within the media. While the media do not explicitly tell people what to think, they do give them the material to think about. With episodic coverage (Greenberg and Page, 164) and evidence about attitude instability (Zaller, 1992) or nonattitudes (Converse, 1964), concerns emerge about media manipulation. “Manipulation may be by the media, by experts, by bureaucrats, and it may even be self-imposed by people’s prejudices” (Niemi and Weisberg, 2001). Page and Shapiro (1992) raise concerns about choices when government controls either information or when misinformation occurs. Framing (Iyengar, 1992) therefore becomes paramount for information control. The ability to present information in specific ways allows those who control the source of the material to mold coverage to their advantage. Presidents can utilize regionalism in presidential speechmaking to better influence their press coverage. Local media sources offer both an escape from national commentary and an attempt to re-forge connections to alienated voters. As Shaw and Sparrow (1999) and Althaus et al. (2002) suggest, local media give the chief executive an outlet for potentially better favorable coverage This approach encourages a sectionalist view of the country. Particularized areas want redress on specific issues. Regional appeals offer many advantages to the president. Local speeches involve captive audiences listening to the full content of the president’s address. Roderick Hart contends “voters are alienated because politics is now grey and lifeless, 22

PAGE 26

drained of the human connectedness once found in the New England village” (Hart, 1999:15). When a president arrives in a community, constituents become excited because the national leader has singled them out to hear him speak. Presidents, in return, receive supportive audiences to rally around him. Through regional appeals, presidents may help restore political trust among constituencies through public appearances. The president trumps Congress through the ultimate ‘going public’ (Kernell 1997) ploy. He reconnects alienated voters to the public sphere but forges the primary connection between the president and the people, not the people and their other elected representatives. Moreover, the president achieves this goal while escaping some of the glare of national scrutiny. Positive local news coverage helps seal this new relationship and reinforce the image of ‘president as local advocate.’ “The idea of ‘voter’ or ‘citizen’ is socially constructed in symbolic ways” (Grombeck and Miller, 1994:156). During the past thirty years, Americans have “constructed a selection process that discourages appeals to unity, rewards empty appeals to candidate identification, and shuns the politics of civic action” (Lee, 1994:58). Is it possible the president offers himself as a surrogate for societal ‘connectedness’? Presidents can place a topic on the public agenda simply by mentioning a problem (Cohen,1995). Presidents now compete with cable television for attention (Powell, 1999; Baum and Kernell, 1999; Welch, 2000). How can they compete when it is easy for viewers to turn the channel and watch the synoptic highlights continuously running on 24-hour news channel? Many scholars (Burnham, 1970; Broder, 1971; Sabato, 1988) point to the decline of American parties, while many others (Rohde, 1991; Miller, 1991; Bartel, 2000; Fiorina, 2002) have shown its resurgence. Fiorina (2002), in particular, draws forth the cyclic nature of parties and puts forth the idea we are in a zenith phase of partisan identification. Partisanship has 23

PAGE 27

become less of a social club and more of a social and cultural identification. Many scholars have noted how closely people relate their party affiliation with income, religion, or other similar social values (McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal, 1997; Layman, 2001). “Presidents, for example, speak in public more frequently during election years and as more households subscribe to cable television” (Powell, 1999:166). Reed Welch documents the power of presidential speeches, but points out how competition on television undermines their effect (Welch, 2000; 2003). Have presidents over the past thirty years increasingly regionalized their speeches? The possible regionalization of rhetoric has serious implications upon the content and context upon presidential discourse. This research explores presidential speeches over the past 30 years to better highlight their patterns. My research project posits a new interpretation of presidential speeches. During previous eras, the president traveled from locale to locale to inform the public about his policy with a personal touch. In doing so, the aim was to promote party platform, candidates, and agendas. With the advent of airplanes and the Internet, recent presidents do not risk being ‘out of the loop’ when they leave Washington to campaign. Modern technology allows them to visit several states within one day while remaining in close contact with their staff. Increasingly, presidents seem to forgo national media appeals in favor of smaller, regional audiences when advocating domestic issues. These interactions offer a more personal and customized leadership couched within the prevailing setting of the continuous campaign. The underlying theory within much of the rhetorical presidency literature relies upon the notion the president addresses national audiences. Though presidents have increased their total speeches over the past thirty years, they no longer solely rely upon the national media to convey the message to the American people. Presidents utilize local media outlets and regional 24

PAGE 28

addresses to connect with the citizenry. Additionally, presidents display savvy knowledge about trends among the population. They target specific constituencies to help mobilize support within Congress, particularly among marginal seats. Presidents attempt to rally congressional support for legislation they consider important for their vision of America. How much of their pressure occurs outside the Washington area? It is well established presidents will call legislators, cajole, and make deals in order to win support. During close votes (i.e., budget), does the president step up speechmaking in congressional districts where the congressperson’s vote is undecided or uncommitted? Samuel Kernell’s Going Public presents “a strategy whereby a president promotes himself and his policies in Washington by appealing to the American public for support” (Kernell, 1997:2). An integral part of ‘going public’ involves presidential posturing. In essence, the president wields the public as a tool to force the Congress into a delegate role. This idea suggests that the interaction between the president and the public reflects a dynamic procedure. Throughout this process, Kernell develops his thesis via a general appeal to the public at large. Ragsdale (1987) posits these techniques with presidential addresses may cause short-term surges in the public’s support that may help push policy through Congress. The ‘going public’ thesis is the idea the president goes over the heads of Congress to the public to then pressure Congress (via the public) to support his policies. ‘Going public,’ as conceived by Samuel Kernell assumes the president will use this tool in a national fashion. By introducing a regional or local element to the ‘going public’ idea, it goes beyond the original concept. A regionalized going public functions with far more precision and finesse than the blunt force of national pressure. 25

PAGE 29

Campaigns for election or re-election of Congressional seats can become platforms for presidential policy reinforcement. Speeches in support of these candidates allow the president to customize his message to better connect with the regional public. National speeches force a unified agenda. Regional speeches allow for diversification to better emphasize key points that resonate with the audience. Simon Blumenthal (1982) says a major feature of American democracy is permanent campaigning. Blumenthal asserts party has been upsurped by consultants for the cultivation of image branding. Consultants “stimulate the public’s wish fulfillment enticing voters to believe that the candidate can satisfy their needs” (Blumenthal, 1982:21). Politicians no longer exist to simply govern, but to reflect back onto the public its own needs and desires from authority. Blumenthal and other permanent campaign researchers believe presidents engage in a continual promotional campaign plan from the day they take office (actually from the moment they declare candidacy) until they step down from power. The basic premise is the president constantly uses the publicity tools of the presidency to further his policies. In essence, the election campaign never ends, but shifts from an electoral to a governing strategy. Bruce Miroff (2003) asserts many modern presidencies exist as a ‘spectacle’. The presidency exists as a mechanism to provide distraction as well as entertainment. “The audience watching a presidential spectacle is, the White House hopes, as impressed by gestures as results. Indeed, the gestures are sometimes preferable to the results” (Miroff, 183). Government becomes a play with the president as the lead actor. Lowi (1985) in some ways furthers this claim when he wrote “the president has become the embodiment of government, it seems perfectly normal for millions upon millions of Americans to concentrate their hopes and feats directly and personally upon him” (96). 26

PAGE 30

The president can direct his message directly into our lives with more and more precision. Between the Internet, cable, satellite, email, newspapers, and magazines, the White House can simultaneously control a variety of messages aimed at very different audiences. Two veins of thought percolate towards this dissertation’s hypothesis of regional evolution in presidential speeches. The first incorporates a look at the declining nature of social capital (Putnam, 2000) while the second suggests how presidents attempt to fill increasing void of civic connectedness. Presidents use symbolism to conjure illusions. “The symbolic president is “a particular set of expectations about the office that are held by the public, described by journalists and teachers, and encouraged by the presidents themselves” (Hinkley, 1990). Bruce Miroff refers to the interaction of the executive and the public as the ‘presidential spectacle.’ Spectacles are symbolic events where “particular details stand for broader and deeper meanings” (Miroff, 2003:279). In addition, “a spectacle does not permit the audience to interrupt the action and redirect its meaning” (Miroff, 2003:279). Miroff implies “the contemporary presidency is presented by the White House (with the collaboration of the media) as a series of spectacles in which a larger-than-life main character and a supporting team engage in emblematic bouts with immoral or dangerous adversaries” (Miroff, 2003:280). In Bowling Alone (2000), Robert Putnam grapples with the decline of social capital within America. He argues we have become increasingly disconnected from each other as our civic and social engagement within society has frayed. An important element to Putnam’s work involves the title. Putnam has asserted in fact the title itself may be misleading. We are not ‘bowling alone’, but rather, participating in activities with small groups of friends, not organizations. As our populace has grown more disconnected, we as citizens have also grown more tribal in our 27

PAGE 31

social and cultural preferences. These atomized preferences manifest themselves in viewing ourselves in new ways. Marketing research has been on the cutting edge of developing techniques to better understand American behavioral attitudes and patterns. We all like to think of ourselves as individuals, but a wealth of marketing data suggests otherwise. Americans are fragmented, but we are consistent in our diversity. In The Clustered World (2000), Michael J. Weiss shows through applying market databases to demographics that Americans can be largely divided into distinct geopolitical clusters, or lifestyle types. “These clusters are based on composites of age, ethnicity, wealth, urbanization, housing style, and family structure” (Weiss, 2000:11). These lifestyles represent America’s modern tribes, sixty-two distinct population groups each with its own set of values, culture, and means of coping with today’s population. A generation ago, Americans thought of themselves as city dwellers, suburbanites, or country folk. But we are no longer that simple, and our neighborhoods reflect our growing complexity. Clusters, which were created to identify demographically similar zip codes around the U.S., are now used to demarcate a variety of small geographic areas, including census tracts (500-1,000 households) and zip plus 4 postal codes (about ten households). Once used to interchangeably with neighborhood type, however, the term cluster now refers to population segments where, thanks to technological advancements, no physical contact is required for cluster membership (Weiss, 2000:11-12). Understanding clusters involves more than simply deciphering their magazine, food, and music preferences. Clusters give us the means to make the fragmented society more coherent. Traditional voting blocs are degrading and the New Deal coalition no longer exists as a comprehensive group. Clusters give us the ability to organize and understand society around personal and cultural similarities. Certain groups will consistently vote in specific ways though they may live in disparate regions of the country. Clusters allow us to transcend crude delineations based solely on physical location, ethnicity, age, or job type. Clusters allow us to 28

PAGE 32

understand multiple preferences within geographical areas. In particular, it has allowed marketing researchers to refocus their efforts upon the customer over geography. The ‘share of customers’ approach to marketing has direct relevance to targeting voters. “In fact, focusing on the share of customer, instead of overall market share, is probably the least expensive and most cost-efficient means of increasing overall sales – and incidentally, market sharetoday” (Peppers and Rogers, 1996:25). Customer loyalty roots itself within this tactic. The goal involves making you a sole consumer of that product, be it laundry detergent or political party. Brand loyalty is key to this strategy’s success. They would rather have consistently 100 percent of your business than give out coupons to attract temporary consumers. Pepper and Rogers (1996) refer to this technique as ‘one to one’ (1:1) marketing. By attracting more of any one customer’s business, companies become more efficient and less wasteful. “A mass marketer tries to differentiate his products while a 1:1 marketer seeks to differentiate his customers” (Pepper and Rogers, 1996:27). One to one marketing attempts to cultivate relationships between the business and individual customers. By focusing in on specific needs, concerns, or desires, companies foster product allegiance. This marketing style signals a marked change from traditional methods. Marketers are not targeting the traditional economies of scale, but rather economies of scope. Economies of scope are not competing for market share, but instead, customer loyalty. By learning as much as they can about you, companies that go for your scope over scale attempt to find out as much as they can about you and your personal preferences. In short, companies steer themselves towards direct rather than mass marketing approaches. What are the political implications of these techniques? Evidence suggests selling a political party in this way may not be all that different from other types of more conventional 29

PAGE 33

products. “Over the past few years, thanks to technological advances and an escalating arms race between the parties, Republicans and Democrats have gone to great lengths to make campaigning more like commercial marketing” (Gertner, 2004). The parties, through organizations like Voter Vault and Datamart, cull information from state voter databases, the census, and direct marketers to create profiles of you and your neighbors. “In the wake of the 2000 election, each political party, convinced that its opponent was getting ahead, stepped up its investments in technology and information-gathering” (Gertner, 2004). It is commonly held that personal contact affects turnout. Voters are more likely to show up to the polls if they have met the candidate or been personally contacted by their candidate’s supporters. This increase in turnout explains why candidates go door-to-door, hold rallies, and have their supporters call potential voters encouraging them to show up on Election Day. Voting as a marketing strategy embraces this concept and molds it to suit their needs. Voters are no longer the masses. Instead, parties have the ability to sell themselves on a personal level with messages that appeal the most to each individual. By mining resources to find topics people hold most dear, groups can use this information as a tool to influence market choice, or in this case, voting decisions. At the heart of this technique, parties are attempting to make their core more brand loyal. Through developing those personal connections, voters are no longer taken for granted. They are instead courted as individuals to make their vote seem important and pertinent to their party’s success. Even independents may find themselves targeted in these approaches. “The new databases and statistical tools allow candidates to seek out individuals by predicting what personal characteristic, or what combination of characteristics, makes a voter worthy of a tailor-made outreach approach. In other words, someone who appears nonpartisan, someone who 30

PAGE 34

thinks of themselves as nonpartisan, may nevertheless have a political DNA that the parties will be able to decode” (Gertner, 2004). Therefore, in campaign seasons or periods of contested elections, do presidents change the locations of speeches compared to other years? Do all or some presidents seem aware of the need to court voters and seek to incorporate regions, markets, or locales into their respective camps? While this research does not look at the cultivation of specific groups of people within regions, it does examine if strategies change in terms of where presidents go during election years. Chapter 2 begins to build this picture by examining how yearly speech patterns change throughout first term presidential administrations. In order to make this research more coherent, this project employs primary categories to better understand how presidents view communication with the country. The first grouping examined will be regional aspects. When presidents give speeches throughout the country, do they employ a ‘concentrating’ or a ‘diffuse’ strategy? Rather, are presidents seeking to give a broad number of speeches in a variety of media markets or census areas, or do they prefer targeting select areas only? Presidents have the ability to speak practically anywhere in the United States to a guaranteed audience. Do they focus in on specific places, or do they prefer grazing the country? The next type I refer to as ‘base’. Do presidents focus in upon their core areas, or do they give speeches elsewhere to build support? Within this base category, presidents can either engage in ‘base reinforcing’ activities, or ‘base expanding’ ones. In Chapter 5 when looking at Electoral College results, this additional nuance will also be examined. If a president spends a significant amount of time in areas closely contested, it could be inferred he was seeking to expand his base of support. Conversely, by given a majority of speeches in areas not in dispute, we can surmise a president sought to reinforce his base of support. 31

PAGE 35

Through using these lens of ‘concentrating’, ‘diffuse’, ‘base reinforcing’, and ‘base expanding’ it becomes more coherent to generalize findings into larger categories to show broader trends. 32

PAGE 36

CHAPTER 2 YEARLY PATTERNS IN SPEECHMAKING We do not have a long history of publicly collected presidential papers. Herbert Hoover is the first president whose speeches and addresses were assembled by National Archives. Franklin Roosevelt privately donated of his papers to his library, but every president starting with Truman has seen all their public communication documented and preserved by National Archives and Records Administration in volumes entitled the Public Papers of the President . Every time the president opens his mouth and communicates with the public, the Public Papers of the President record both verbal and publicly available non-verbal communication (i.e., vetoes, executive orders, letters to Congress, nominations, statements). In addition, every formal (i.e., news conference, radio address, state of the union) and informal (i.e., exchange with reporters, comments before meetings) are included within the papers. This project decided to include every verbal communication of each administration. If certain types of verbal interaction are eliminated, bias may occur in analysis. This project does not place any favoritism on types of speech. Granted, formal addresses are different from informal exchanges. Many scholars prefer to study formal speeches because they often were vetted through speechwriters and may contain more useful content. However, different presidents had radically differing styles. Many scholars study the content of speeches or select specific ones deemed important. Modern presidents speak so frequently that their discourse can seem to more closely resemble a cacophony of noise than coherent agenda setting interactions. Presidents have also changed the volume of speeches they give during each administration. Table 2-1 shows the total number of first term speeches in the Public Papers of the President . For Truman and Ford, these counts begin with their assumption of office. However, for Lyndon B. Johnson, these numbers are for his first full term in office. Johnson assumed office within a month of an election year, so for 33

PAGE 37

stability purposes, his counts start in 1965. Starting with Johnson, the number of times presidents speak publicly begins to rise. However, the clear trend seems to start more pronouncedly with Ford. Presidents Ford to Reagan spoke around 1500 in his first term. TABLE 2-1 Total number of first term speeches in Public Papers President Number Truman 596 Eisenhower 413 Kennedy 783 Johnson 523 Nixon 840 Ford 1278 Carter 1457 Reagan 1563 Bush 41 2026 Clinton 2575 Bush 43 2153 However, the clear trend seems to start more pronouncedly with Ford. Presidents Ford to Reagan each spoke around 1500 in his first term. A dramatic change apparently happens with the George H. W. Bush administration. George H.W. Bush has well over 2000 public events and since then, other administrations have followed similar trends. In his first term, George W. Bush gave 2182 separate verbal communications as recorded in the Weekly Documents of the President . The length of time between January 20, 2001 and January 20, 2005 is 1461 days meaning Bush gave 1.49 speeches a day, every day during his first term in office. While not as high as Clinton (1.76 speeches/day), it is considerably higher than either Reagan (1.07 speeches/day) or Eisenhower (.28/speeches a day) who usually enjoyed a reputation of being available to the media. How much of this speech is really important? While difficult to discern, most would agree the State of the Union is vastly more relevant than a short speech honoring Olympiads or reigning champions of professional sports leagues. The difficulty in sifting 34

PAGE 38

through the content of thousands of speeches inevitably leads to cherry picking specific ones for analysis. While necessary to help filter content and conduct in depth research, is it also possible to look at all presidential speeches together as a set in a comprehensive and concise manner? President Clinton has many informal exchanges with reporters while President George W. Bush has fewer on record. This research is more complete by including every time a president speaks than arbitrarily eliminating communication by type. This research project makes the assumption if the president decides to speak publicly at a location, however informally, he intentionally did so of his own accord, and it will be included and documented. For each time a president spoke publicly, the name assigned to it in the Public Papers of the President was recorded, the date, along with the location of the speech. When available, the location of speeches inside the White House was noted (i.e., Roosevelt Room, Rose Garden). If the speech occurred outside the White House, the city and state of each speech was noted. We must first examine what all recorded presidential speeches have in common. Some are written by speechwriters, others are administration talking points, while others may just be off the cuff remarks. Therefore, content not just across, but also within, administrations may vary in authorship. In the past thirty years (particularly Post-LBJ), almost all presidential speech is recorded by the press. However, how much the press reports to the public is highly subjective. The amount of time television news programs devote to presidential sound bites has regularly declined for years. According to Hallin (1992), the average length of time a presidential candidate spoke uninterrupted on evening network news in 1968 was 43.1 seconds. By 1984, this number declined to 9.9 seconds, and by 2000 (Center for Media and Public Affairs), the length declined to 7.0 seconds. The George W. Bush administration has been particularly adept in compensating for these declines in coverage. In many speeches, typically on a specific topic 35

PAGE 39

or policy, they utilize backdrops with the key idea or theme repeated over and over so any passive viewer of a media source featuring reporting on this speech will immediately glean the general topic regardless of how much of the speech was actually shown on television. Speech reported by a media source may vary greatly from the intent of an actual given speech or verbal remarks. This Bush administration has retaken control of the discourse by forcing visual media sources to convey their key points without commentary. It has become a common practice of this administration to use a backdrop behind the president during most public speeches with the name of the topic he plans to speak on that day repetitively written on it. Therefore, with the president speaking in front of this, even the most passive news viewer can observe the president is speaking about ‘health care’ or ‘No Child Left Behind’ during that speech. More important, no matter what sound byte a news channel selects for their program, the intent of the speech is conveyed to the viewer. In the face of so much variance, is it possible to detect patterns? After we taken into consideration all the distinctiveness of speeches, what do we have left? In the modern presidency era, we have the Public Papers of the President along with the Weekly Documents of the President in the National Archives. There are national impartial collections archiving a record of all public actions of all public actions of the sitting president. While all unique, all are also uniform. Every speech by the president is given a title and date. In addition, each location for a speech is documented and recorded. Unfortunately, it is difficult to simply analyze all presidencies across time uniformly. Ideally, the American presidency functions on a rather consistent cycle. During year one, the American president settles into the role of chief executive. In the second year, the presidency deals with midterm congressional elections. The third year may have an occasional off-cycle 36

PAGE 40

gubernatorial election (i.e., Kentucky), but overall there are no major electoral campaigns nationwide. Year four is usually the most active year for campaigning if the president is seeking reelection. He will typically campaign at some point for himself. Earlier modern presidency administrations like Eisenhower started around August of the election year, while George W. Bush gave one of his first campaign oriented speeches in December of 2003, a full year and a month before the election. Term limited presidents seem to not campaign as fervently for their successors, but still increase their speechmaking in election periods. Problems occur when attempting to compare presidencies across time. Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford all assumed the presidency upon the death or resignation of another. Their presidential years are not as easily comparable to other administrations. Lyndon Johnson’s full year one really would have been John Kennedy’s fourth year in office. So, while other presidents may have had the luxury of settling into an office without anticipating an election for three years, Johnson became president with a reelection campaign eminently looming upon the horizon. So, how should his year one be counted? Clearly, it will skew the results of year one presidential speeches. However, where else would it truly fit? For initial comparisons, perhaps it is best to manage the problematic presidencies at first. By doing so, it also helps contend with Kennedy, Johnson, and Ford. In the cases of Kennedy and Ford, it is easier just to consider Kennedy as an administration with 3 years, and Ford as an administration that really begins during year 2. Johnson presents a more complicated situation because Johnson’s true year 1 has 487 verbal events, more than any other year in the Johnson administration. It has more speaking engagements than any other president until 1976 with Ford followed by 1984 with Reagan. It is, not really the beginnings of his first term, but instead the completion of Kennedy. The spike in speaking follows more closely with a 4 th year in office 37

PAGE 41

rather than a first. In order to make things as straightforward as possible Johnson’s 1963-1964 speeches are not included in the results for first term presidencies. For the majority of the dissertation, the presidencies examined start with Richard M. Nixon. Primarily, it makes comparison simpler for a number of reasons. As Figures 2-1 and 2-2 indicate, the volume of speeches grew dramatically following the Nixon presidency. Figure 2-2 also shows a clear yearly pattern appearing after Nixon. Since Ford lacks a true year 1, it is difficult to definitively determine exactly if the pattern begins with Ford or Carter. Perhaps more important, the data for media markets in Chapter 4 was not available until 1969, or the first year of the Richard M. Nixon administration. However, it is important to show through Figures 2-1 & 2-2 as well as Table 2-2, these decisions were not arbitrary. The presidential administrations prior to Nixon have more problematic issues (particularly Johnson) and do not exhibit as regular a pattern as later ones. FIGURE 2-1 Yearly first term speeches by volume including Washington, DC 0100200300400500600700800TrumanEisenhowerKennedyJohnsonNixonFordCarterReaganGHW BushClintonGW BushPresidencyNumber of Speeches Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Figure 2-1 shows the full counts for all first term speeches presented by year without any speeches excluded. Many initial results immediately stand out. First off, Truman’s fourth year 38

PAGE 42

in his first term is exceptionally unusual. As Table 2-2 demonstrates, Truman gave over 300 more speeches in year 4 than any other year during his first term in office. In addition, during years 1 to 3, at least 80 percent of all speeches were in Washington, DC. In year 4, only 13.2 percent originated in Washington, DC. This dramatic shift is almost completely attributed to his 1948 whistlestop campaign tour of the United States. Figure 2-1 also reveals Eisenhower’s years 1, 3, and 4 were practically identical in terms of speech volume. The highest yearly number of speeches occurs during the congressional election year 2. The lack of any real changes particularly in year 4 further adds credence to the idea Eisenhower was not in ideal health for a reelection campaign in 1956. Of all the presidencies in Figure 2-1, Richard Nixon’s speechmaking pattern is the most unique. With the exception of Eisenhower (health) and Kennedy (non-existent), every other presidential administration’s year 4 displays a large spike of speeches during that last year. Nixon is the only president whose speech volume actually shrinks. Every year of the first term of the Nixon administration is marked by a lower number of speeches than the preceding year. In essence, this administration’s speech making appears to visibly diminish within the public’s eye. With Nixon, it is not simply enough to dismiss this retreat from the public as a reaction to Watergate. Nixon assumed office in 1969, the year of his largest number of public speeches. With every other regularly elected president in Figure 2-1, their speech volume increases during their second year in office while Nixon’s declines. The earliest inklings of Watergate do not emerge until June 1971 with the publication of the Pentagon Papers. The ‘plumbers’ of Watergate do not break into Ellsberg’s office until September 1971. By this point, Nixon’s speechmaking is already in a clear pattern of decline in volume compared to the previous first term administrations of Kennedy and Johnson. However, it is likely Watergate was fundamental 39

PAGE 43

in affecting the number of public speeches given by Nixon in 1972. The arrests at the Watergate Hotel occur in June 1972, and these unfolding events consumed much of the administration’s attention during the heart of campaign season. For the remaining presidencies (Johnson, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush), two primary patterns appear in Figure 2-1. Either the volume of speeches increases for every year in office, or years 2 and 4 see a marked increase in speeches over years 1 and 3. In a very simple comparison, Reagan and George H. W. Bush appear similar, while Carter and George W. Bush seemingly mimic each other. Clinton is somewhat similar to Carter and George W. Bush though his year 1 speech level is exceedingly higher than the other two. While no clear configuration emerges from Figure 2-1, it is possible some speeches obscure more prominent patterns. As Table 1-1 roughly indicates and Table 2-2 more carefully demonstrates, a large percentage of presidential speeches occur in Washington, DC. Is it possible that the voluminous speeches within Washington, DC obfuscate other patterns? “Rose Garden rubbish” (Benchley, 1969) style speeches often refer to events of inconsequential events where the current president presents an award or honors a specific individual. Presidencies often devote considerable time to these events and since all speeches in Figure 2-1 are treated with equal weight, the huge numbers of Washington, DC speeches may affect how we perceive the president’s communication with the public. Figure 2-2 shows all the first term speeches eliminating speeches given in Washington, DC. With the removal of the Washington, DC speeches, it is evident that some of the patterns remained basically the same while others took on completely different characteristics. With or without Washington DC, Richard Nixon’s speeches declined as the first term of his presidency progressed. Both Truman and Ford’s speeches saw a considerable increase in their presidential 40

PAGE 44

reelection year. This finding is significant because as Figure 2-2 and Table 2-2 indicate, Truman and Ford spent a sizeable amount of time giving speeches outside of Washington, DC during that year. Truman gave 64.9 of all the speeches during his first term in 1948, and in 1976, Ford gave 54.9. Since they each assumed the presidency unexpectedly, these findings demonstrate they were, in effect, selling themselves to the American public. FIGURE 2-2 Yearly first term speeches by volume excluding Washington, DC 050100150200250300350400450TrumanEisenhowerKennedyJohnsonNixonFordCarterReaganGHWBushClintonGWBushPresidencyNumber of Speeches Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Another interesting discovery involves the speechmaking patterns for presidents Carter through George W. Bush. Without the inclusion of Washington, DC speeches, all five first terms for these administrations look almost identical with the exception of volume. Figure 2-2 indicates a general increase in the number of speeches, but more important, an extremely regular pattern in how the presidents speak outside of Washington, DC during their first four years in office. Year 1 consists of the fewest number of speeches in comparison to all other years. Also, when examining the results on Table 2-2, year one (with the exception of George H.W. Bush) has by far the highest percentage of speeches concentrated in Washington, DC. Year 2 shows a 41

PAGE 45

marked increase in speeches. In fact, as Figure 2-2 suggests, every administration except Truman and Ford saw their speeches in year 2 (midterm election year) peak higher than any other year with the exception of year 4. For every administration after Ford, year 2 represents the second highest number of speeches for the entire second term. Year 3 on Figure 2-2 also displays some interesting results. With the exception of the growth of speeches within the Ford presidency for that year, every other administration examined exhibits a decline in speechmaking outside of Washington, DC. Year 3 appears to be more of a governing year for presidents with generally fewer speeches ‘on the road.’ Year 4 in Figure 2-2 indicates that presidents take seriously the re-election campaign bids in every administration after Nixon. Presidents speak, speak often, and speak frequently outside of Washington, DC during their fourth year in the presidency. The regularity in the patterns following the Nixon administration in Figure 2-2 strongly suggest that there has developed some sort of basic shift in presidential speechmaking strategies. Volume has increased, and a clear cycle of speech patterns emerges after Ford. Presidents no longer simply use Washington, DC as their base of operations. During times of election activity, they travel the country at a higher level than in other periods. These findings obviously suggest a cyclical nature to speechmaking during president’s first terms. While the sheer volume of speeches may occasionally mask this pattern, as indicated on Figure 2-1, both figures demonstrate some sort of fundamental change in presidential speechmaking takes place around the Nixon/Ford/Carter presidency period. Therefore, it lends credence to the remainder of this research in subsequent chapters to concentrate their focus on the presidency from 1969 onwards. Table 2-2 shows the yearly distribution of presidential speeches. It also includes the total percentage of speeches over year first term administration along with the percentage of those 42

PAGE 46

speeches that were in Washington, DC for that year. Presidential election years are highlighted in bold print. With the exception of Lyndon Johnson in 1968, every presidential reelection year coincides with the fewest number of speeches each president gives in Washington, DC over their four-year term. These results are significant because it suggests every president seeking re-election does increase his nation wide travel for speaking engagements. In Table 2-2, Johnson is the only president who announced he would not seek another term in office though eligible for the position. He announces his intention not to seek reelection on March 31, 1968, well before campaign season really begins in earnest throughout the United States for a presidential campaign. Though Table 2-2 does not offer any definitive proof, it also somewhat implies Lyndon Johnson did not commit the same level of campaigning for his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, Democratic candidate in 1968 as other administrations did when they were campaigning for themselves. It also shows that for every administration including and after Johnson, there has been a noticeable decline in the percentage of speeches given in Washington, DC during year 2 followed by an increase in year 3. This pattern helps suggest presidents do consider campaigning important in years 2 and 4 while 1 and 3 involve more speechmaking centered in Washington, DC. Most administrations show either year 1 or 3 representing their nadir in total speechmaking for the entire first term. For the last 2 administrations (Clinton and George W. Bush), their third year signifies their speechmaking low point, while the first year is the lower for the 2 prior to them (Reagan and George H.W. Bush). Clinton and George W. Bush both had contested elections with no clear frontrunner during the campaigning season. It makes sense they would spend a greater amount of time in their first year essentially introducing themselves to the 43

PAGE 47

country. In the case of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, they each had fairly dominating elections for their first terms and easily won victory. They did not face the same pressures as Clinton and George W. Bush to essentially ‘sell’ them to the American public. TABLE 2-2 Yearly distribution of speeches within first terms and Washington, DC President Year Total Number of Speeches Percentage Per Year of Total Speech within Term Percent Per Year in Washington, DC Truman 1945 58 9.8 82.8 Truman 1946 80 13.5 91.3 Truman 1947 70 11.8 80.0 Truman 1948 386 64.9 13.2 Eisenhower 1953 92 22.3 68.5 Eisenhower 1954 135 32.7 68.9 Eisenhower 1955 91 22.0 63.7 Eisenhower 1956 95 23.0 63.2 Kennedy 1961 197 25.2 67.5 Kennedy 1962 301 38.4 70.1 Kennedy 1963 285 36.4 59.6 Johnson 1965 247 20.8 88.3 Johnson 1966 328 27.6 62.8 Johnson 1967 277 23.3 79.1 Johnson 1968 335 28.2 77.3 Nixon 1969 273 32.1 63.0 Nixon 1970 231 27.2 45.5 Nixon 1971 175 20.6 53.7 Nixon 1972 171 20.1 42.1 Ford 1974 157 12.3 48.4 Ford 1975 419 32.8 50.6 Ford 1976 702 54.9 37.0 Carter 1977 333 22.9 75.9 Carter 1978 362 24.8 56.4 Carter 1979 293 20.1 62.1 Carter 1980 469 32.2 53.1 Reagan 1981 268 17.1 80.6 Reagan 1982 388 24.8 61.1 Reagan 1983 423 27.0 66.9 Reagan 1984 487 31.1 54.6 Bush 41 1989 443 21.9 59.6 Bush 41 1990 483 23.8 55.7 Bush 41 1991 521 25.7 60.8 Bush 41 1992 579 28.6 36.4 Clinton 1993 687 26.7 73.1 Clinton 1994 684 26.6 55.4 Clinton 1995 554 21.5 60.1 Clinton 1996 650 25.2 44.8 Bush 43 2001 556 25.5 61.5 Bush 43 2002 590 27.0 47.1 Bush 43 2003 444 20.3 50.2 Bush 43 2004 592 27.1 35.9 44

PAGE 48

All the tables and figures in this chapter demonstrate a significant change in speechmaking occurred after the Nixon presidency. Nixon has been the only president with speeches collected by the National Archives who gave fewer speeches for every year he was in office during his first term. A huge upswing in the amount of speeches occurred during the Ford presidency resulting in a new pattern of speechmaking as well. As Figure 2-2 and Table 2-2 help substantiate, a regular pattern has developed for speechmaking outside of Washington, DC starting with Carter. These patterns suggest there is recurring cycle to speechmaking contrary to the notion of permanent campaigning. Figure 2-1 demonstrates speechmaking has increased every year in specific presidencies but much of that speech is confined only to Washington, DC. Given the general verbosity of various chief executives, much of this speech involves informal exchanges than deliberate engagements. By focusing in on patterns within census regions in the next chapter and media markets (Chapter 4), it will become even more apparent presidents select and choose to give speeches strategically at different times in their presidencies. Moreover, speechmaking for administrations does involve a cyclic nature and as Chapter 5 will illuminate, campaigning only occurs sporadically. 45

PAGE 49

CHAPTER 3 UNITED STATES CENSUS REGIONS Exactly where do presidents give speeches during their term in office? Has there been a significant shift over time that demonstrates a clear trend in speechmaking? Regions in political science tend to have geographical connotations. Over the past several decades, scholars have attempted to define regionalism with location being the source of commonality. However, spatial constraints force scholars into unnatural analyses with assumptions about relationships that may not actually exist. Diversity among populations may be ignored in order to promote a configuration along geographical boundaries like the Southern states. In many analyses, the ‘South’ consists of the former Confederate states based upon their secession from Union in the 1860s. This standard typically ignores states like Kentucky and Missouri that remained in the Union, but were considered to have strong Confederate elements and even competing governments from both sides. Should they not be considered part of a geographical construct like ‘the South’ simply because their political turmoil in the Civil War kept them officially as neutral states? Is it logical to conduct academic research on regions utilizing a standard set forth over 140 years ago? The South has radically changed in social, ethnic, and racial composition since the Lincoln administration. The emergence of the Sunbelt following World War II brought rapid industrialization, suburbanization, and migrants from the North into Southern states. Racially, the South has radically diversified in the 20 th century. For instance, Hispanics from Central and South America have impacted the area both socially and politically. Other regions in the United States have also undergone massive internal migrations and immigration from all over the world. Given the level of variety that can exist even within geographical regions inside the United 46

PAGE 50

States, searching for another explanation for uniformity may be at times more useful. The first step involves divorcing regionalism from permanent association with geographical models. In the United States, most Americans live in metropolitan areas. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uses Metropolitan Areas (MA) and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) as a way to provide a nationally consistent gauge to compare cities. First issued in 1949, OMB and the Census Bureau have adapted their system to grapple with increasingly larger concentrations of people in specific urban areas (Census, 2006). Broadly speaking, a MA simply refers to a large population living in or near a central city. MSA refers to a more specific standard with “a city of at least 50,000 population or an urbanized area of at least 50,000 with a total metropolitan area population of at least 100,000” (Census, 2006). OMB has further subdivided areas into Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSA) and Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas. PMSAs are “comprised of one or more counties (county subdivisions in New England), within a metropolitan area, having a population of 1,000,000 or more. When PMSAs are established, the larger area of which they are component parts is designated a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area” (Census Regions, 2006). In essence, OMB and Census recognize diversity that occurs among different sizes of population concentrations. While most Americans may live together in areas, the volume of people residing in places drastically affects social and political structure. OMB and Census have attempted to better statistically comprehend their findings by devising more nuanced scales to separate out cities like Billings, Montana from Chicago, Illinois. Both cities qualify as MSAs, but are radically different in terms of the scale of urbanization. The PMSA designation exists to better understand and compare extremely large (million plus) communities. 47

PAGE 51

The political science discipline has addressed regional models throughout the 20 th century. V.O. Key’s seminal works (1949; 1955) rely upon collapsing states into broad regions to study them. This technique, similar to the census, has been widely used through the discipline as a way to divide the United States. While his divisions are still excellent for broad comparison, they cannot easily be dissected for nuance. Atlanta, Georgia and Chattanooga, Tennessee both exist within the same region. Both cities are relatively large and geographically Southern, but have radically different levels of urbanization, histories and cultural traditions. Residents of Chicago belong to the same region as the rest of Illinois. Chicago is dramatically different from rest of a state that bases much of its economy around agriculture. When using large regions (i.e., West, Midwest, Southern, Northeastern) as the gauge for studies, we risk inevitably losing character and clear distinctiveness. Key’s regional models are still more than adequate for large questions, but perhaps cannot capture intra-regional difference and variation. Others have attempted to grapple with the same issue as well over the years. Daniel Elazar’s research organizes the country around three distinct political cultures, individualist, moralistic, and traditionalistic. The strength within his model revolves around the dissemination of the cultures throughout the country. States can have multiple traditions, and more important, specific areas can have a synthesis of multiple cultures. Elazar focuses upon the impact and influence of immigration patterns upon areas (Elazar, 1972). Detractors criticize the non-empirical methodology of his classification scheme. Elazar’s mapping relies upon personal, not statistical, evidence within his categorization. Perhaps the most important critique of Elazar’s research involves its static nature. Though many regions of the United States have seen massive social, political, and ethnic changes over the past 40 years, his regions remain largely unchanged. This critique cannot remain exclusively Elazar’s. Other scholars (Luttbeg, 1971; Garreau, 1982; 48

PAGE 52

Lieske, 1993) have attempted to classify the United States in regions. However, ultimately most suffer similar shortcomings of both Key and Elazar. When faced with immigration or social and political change, these models have adaptability challenges. They may accurately capture the picture within their own time, but the schema may not be adequate in ten or twenty years. Luttbeg (1971) employs an empirical model, but his technique seems dated thirty years later. Garreau (1982) carves North America into nine regions, ignoring Canadian, American, Caribbean, and Mexican borders. While intriguing, it lacks methodological grounding, and fails to capture the nuance that exists between urban and rural areas. Lieske (1993) perhaps best attempts to capture fine distinctions among regional subcultures. He breaks apart the United States into counties and assigns it one of ten cultural designations. The cultural designations then are used as the basis for empirical measurement. Asians are among the fasting growing immigrant groups, yet remain not represented within his model. Though Lieske is more methodologically rigorous than Elazar and less broad than Key, he ultimately faces the same challenges of adaptability over time. Whether we are a melting pot, salad bowl, or chowder, America’s immigrants groups shift around over time. Studies that aim to anchor them within specific areas inevitably age and become out-of-date. This research does not suggest census models are not valuable. On the contrary, they provide tremendous insight into general locations and preferences. At the same time, this project suggests the use of geographical boundaries may inhibit a full understanding of choices in speechmaking as well as limit-nuanced understanding. This work suggests census areas when used in conjunction with other scales may lend themselves to better comprehending trends over time. 49

PAGE 53

If we already recognize different locales within geographical regions have drastically diverse population compositions, is it possible to eliminate spatial considerations in favor of another scale? Can we reconceive regionalism as similarities between correspondingly sized metropolitan areas regardless of geography? In other words, do cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia have more in common with each other given their size than they do with smaller cities in their same states like Albany, Sacramento, Springfield, El Paso, and Harrisburg? Do presidents give speeches in specific cities based more on their size or location? This work involves presenting census regions as a gauge for research. While informative, are they powerful enough to coherently explain changes in speechmaking patterns during the modern presidency era? Census regions were first developed in 1942 as a way to present data. The regions are four different categories that include all the United States. TABLE 3-1 Census regions Northeast South Midwest West Connecticut Alabama Illinois Alaska Maine Arkansas Indiana Arizona Massachusetts Delaware Iowa California New Hampshire Florida Kansas Colorado New Jersey Georgia Michigan Hawaii New York Kentucky Minnesota Idaho Pennsylvania Louisiana Missouri Montana Rhode Island Maryland Nebraska Nevada Vermont Mississippi North Dakota New Mexico North Carolina Ohio Oregon Oklahoma South Dakota Utah South Carolina Wisconsin Washington Tennessee Wyoming Texas Virginia West Virginia Table 3-1 presents the regions as divided by the U.S. Census Bureau. These regions are separated by geographical partitions. Table 3-2 explores the census regions even further by 50

PAGE 54

showing their aggregate distributions over the first terms for Presidents Nixon to George W. Bush. TABLE 3-2 First term speeches by census region & DC, foreign speeches, and residence President Northeast South Midwest West DC Foreign Presidential Residences N Total Nixon 5.2 8.4 6.9 7.7 53.6 13.6 4.6 823 Ford 7.2 17.7 16.4 8.9 43.6 5.1 1.0 1257 Carter 7.3 10.3 7.5 4.0 61.5 8.0 1.5 1445 Reagan 4.2 7.5 6.8 5.8 65.0 5.5 5.1 1541 Bush 41 6.1 14.7 8.2 5.9 53.5 9.1 2.5 1985 Clinton 1 6.9 10.2 7.1 7.8 58.9 8.3 .6 2551 Bush 43 6.7 15.3 12.1 5.9 48.6 6.9 4.3 2171 It presents the percent of speeches in the four primary census areas with separate categories for both Washington, DC, foreign speeches, and speeches given at designated presidential residences. Presidential residences are locations each administration used, or considered their ‘home away from Washington, DC.’ It is important to consider these specific speeches distinctive from others because some presidents spend a considerable amount of time at these locations, while others spend practically none at all. For every president who utilized it, Camp David is included in the Presidential Residences category. Ronald Reagan, in particular, favored the place speaking approximately 55 times during his first term at Camp David (primarily radio addresses). Many of these locations were homes or vacation homes of presidents prior to assuming office. Richard Nixon’s secondary presidential residences included San Clemente, California and Key Biscayne, Florida. Gerald Ford spent time in Vail, Colorado, while for Jimmy Carter it was Plains, Georgia. Ronald Reagan’s secondary personal residence while in office was his ranch in Santa Barbara, California. Both Bushes have used Kennebunkport, Maine as a vacation residence, though George W. Bush has also spent considerably more time in Crawford Texas. Bill Clinton’s vacation locations are somewhat of an exception in comparison to the other administrations. Clinton vacationed at the homes of friends on Martha’s Vineyard or 51

PAGE 55

Nantucket most years, with the exception of two years in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. This location was decided upon after Dick Morris conducted a poll of the American public asking where Clinton should vacation (Kuhn, 2004). The Jackson Hole vacations are included in the residence category because he explicitly vacationed there in 1995 and 1996. Presidential Residences are places where the president may spend a considerable amount of time while in office. They are not places for the president to shirk duties. Many of the more formal residences (Clinton excluded) were upgraded for security and communication purposes. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George W. Bush all have referred to their home as the ‘Western White House.’ In 2001, the George W. Bush administration had an oval sign with the seal of the State Department created that reads ‘The Western White House, Crawford, Texas’ that is displayed in briefings every time the president is there in residence. Nixon referred to his Key Biscayne residence as the ‘Southern White House’ (Time, 1973) though the others, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton did not seemingly have a moniker for the locations they spent time away from the White House. As Table 3-2 indicates, some administrations utilized an alternative presidential residential location as a place to give speeches far more frequently than others. The category Presidential Residences looks at speeches given solely at the location of their non-White House residence. In particular, Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush gave at least 4 percent of all speeches at their respective locations. As a general comparison between one of the more recent administrations with a ‘Western White House’ and one without, George W. Bush spoke 94 times while Bill Clinton spoke 15 times at presidential residential locations in their first terms in office. Turning to the four primary census regions in the United States, several patterns immediately become evident. It seems almost every administration gives more speeches in the 52

PAGE 56

South and Midwest than other areas. In particular, the South has the highest percentage of speeches for every administration on the table. One of the first questions that emerges, however, is how much does the Washington, DC category in Table 3-2 affect these numbers? Some presidents like Ronald Reagan, gave 65 percent of their first term speeches in DC while others like Gerald Ford gave only 43.6 percent. Is it possible this wide variance in speeches affects the appearance of percentages in other categories? As Table 3-3 suggests, the answer appears to be somewhat affirmative. Table 3-3 eliminates the Washington DC, Foreign, and Presidential Residential Speeches. It only shows the speeches given in the four census regions without weighing in these other categories. TABLE 3-3 Speeches in census regions excluding DC, foreign and presidential residence President Northeast South Midwest West N Total Nixon 18.5 29.7 24.6 27.2 232 Ford 14.4 35.1 32.6 17.9 632 Carter 25.0 35.5 25.7 13.8 420 Reagan 17.3 30.9 28.0 23.7 375 Bush 41 17.6 41.9 23.4 17.0 693 Clinton 21.8 31.7 22.1 24.4 816 Bush 43 16.7 38.3 30.1 14.9 870 In Table 3-2, the Northeast speeches for Ford and Carter varied only a tenth of a percent. However, when comparing them to Table 3-3, the change shifts to a little over ten percent. More important, Table 3-3 indicates more that both Democratic presidents spent more time in the Northeast during their own presidencies than their Republican counterparts. When presidents give speeches out in the United States, Table 3-3 shows the Southern census region is undoubtedly their favorite over the entire course of their first term. While Table 3-3 adds additional nuance to presidential preferences during their first terms, are those preferences constant every year? In other words, do presidents modify their speechmaking patterns within the census regions of the United States during election years? 53

PAGE 57

TABLE 3-4 Census regional speeches by presidential administration (excluding DC) President Year Northeast South Midwest West Nixon 1969 13.9 18.8 5.3 25.4 Nixon 1970 25.6 31.9 49.1 34.9 Nixon 1971 32.6 27.5 33.3 22.2 Nixon 1972 27.9 21.7 12.3 17.5 Nixon Total 43 69 57 63 Ford 1974 6.6 6.8 10.7 14.2 Ford 1975 30.8 20.7 20.9 27.4 Ford 1976 62.6 72.5 68.4 58.4 Ford Total 91 222 206 113 Carter 1977 12.4 13.4 5.6 13.8 Carter 1978 18.1 30.2 20.4 31.0 Carter 1979 16.2 13.4 26.9 17.2 Carter 1980 53.3 42.9 47.2 37.9 Carter Total 105 149 108 58 Reagan 1981 13.8 12.1 5.7 6.7 Reagan 1982 21.5 20.7 24.8 34.8 Reagan 1983 26.2 33.6 12.4 23.6 Reagan 1984 38.5 33.6 57.1 34.8 Reagan Total 65 116 105 89 Bush 41 1989 22.9 15.8 8.0 14.4 Bush 41 1990 16.4 19.9 19.1 30.5 Bush 41 1991 18.0 19.9 14.2 18.6 Bush 41 1992 42.6 44.3 58.6 36.4 Bush 41 Total 122 291 162 118 Clinton 1993 19.7 17.4 12.8 24.1 Clinton 1994 29.2 22.4 36.1 14.6 Clinton 1995 15.2 24.7 12.2 25.1 Clinton 1996 35.9 35.5 38.9 36.2 Clinton Total 178 259 180 199 Bush 43 2001 16.6 24.3 11.5 12.3 Bush 43 2002 31.0 28.2 24.8 24.6 Bush 43 2003 13.1 18.0 12.6 27.7 Bush 43 2004 39.3 29.4 51.1 35.4 Bush 43 Total 145 333 262 130 Table 3-4 indicates speech patterns do vacillate depending upon the year of the first term. Nixon and Ford are unique among the others within this set. Nixon in Southern, Midwest and Western regions gives fewer speeches in year 4 than in years 2 or 3. His speechmaking in the Northeast peaks in year 3, but declines from that point in year 4. Ford, probably attributable to the circumstances he assumed the presidency, exhibits a pattern of speech growth in every year for all three years he is in office. He notably spends an overwhelming amount of time in the 54

PAGE 58

regions in his presidential reelection year. It should not be surprising given the contentious nature of the 1976 presidential election and that Ford was seeking his first elected term as president. For the remaining administrations, Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, patterns exist, but not in every region for every presidency. The Western U.S. Census region perhaps is one of the clearer cut to examine. With the exception of Bill Clinton, the other presidents all tend to focus more speeches in this region during year 2 and year 4. In every case, the difference in the percentage of speeches given in the West region between years 1 and 4 is quite large. Though not conclusive, it appears Carter onwards (except Clinton) devote more speechmaking time during either Congressional or presidential election cycles. Clinton runs counter to the other administrations in the Western region. While his speeches also crest in year 4, he gives the lowest percentage of speeches in the Western region during 1994. Every administration with the exception of Nixon on Table 3-4 gave their highest percentage of speeches in the Northeast during their election year. The Nixon administration’s high point was year 3 in this particular census region. Ford and Carter gave over 50 percent of their total Northeast speeches during their last year in office while they sought reelection. Reagan’s Northeast speeches increased every year in office, while George H.W. Bush gave the most in his first and last years. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush exhibit very similar tendencies regarding regular patterns for the Northeast. The fewest number of speeches for each president occurred in year 3, with year 1 with the second least. The largest numbers of speeches were in the congressional and presidential election years with year 4 with the absolute highest percentage. Though not 55

PAGE 59

definitive, Table 7 somewhat implies Clinton and George W. Bush spent more time in the Northeast in campaign years. For the Midwest census region, 4 of the 7 administrations gave over 50 percent of their total speeches in that geographical area during their presidential election year. Of the remaining three (Nixon, Carter and Clinton), Nixon seems to have almost abandoned speechmaking in the Midwest during his fourth year in office when comparing it to years two and three. Carter almost gives half of all his Midwest region speeches in year four with an overall total of 47.3 percent. The only true outlier (aside from Nixon) in their fourth year in office seems to be Bill Clinton. Unlike his other contemporaries, Clinton only gave 38.9 of his total speeches in the Midwest during year 4. While not an insignificant number, it is close to year two’s percentage of 36.1 showing that Clinton seemingly spent time in the Midwest mostly in election years. However, with the exception of Richard Nixon, Clinton committed a higher percentage of midterm speeches in the Midwest than any other president on Table 3-4. The Southern census region presents some of the more interesting findings for Table 3-4. In general, presidents tend to give speeches in the South with more regularity than other areas. While yearly increases and decreases occur, the swings in other regions seem to be less dramatic for several administrations. The most surprising results are located in Reagan. Though almost every other administration (again, except for Nixon) experiences a strong increase in year four over year three, Ronald Reagan’s speech level in the South remains flat. In fact, he gives exactly the same number of speeches in the South during both 1983 and 1984. Overall, looking at speeches through the lens of the United States census regions produces interesting results. Presidents do prefer, when giving speeches, to concentrate in certain parts over others. As Tables 3-2 and 3-3 pointed out, almost every administration, save Nixon and 56

PAGE 60

Clinton focused the majority of their speeches inside the United States within the South and Midwest. Table 3-3 suggests almost all presidents concentrate more speechmaking in first terms in the South and Midwest census regions. In a way, this makes logical sense given the population shifts throughout the latter twentieth century. The Southern region has grown in political importance as the Sunbelt has experienced a population boom. Reapportionment following the 1990 and 2000 censuses resulted in Florida gaining 7 seats, Texas 5, and Georgia 3 in the House of Representatives and a total of 76 votes in the Electoral College. The Midwestern states of Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio lost 3 seats each in the same reapportionments though all still cumulatively wield 56 votes within the Electoral College. More important, Table 3-4 demonstrates these regional preferences have a tendency to occur in certain years over others. Richard Nixon’s speechmaking throughout the United States appears to be an outlier in comparison to latter presidents. In terms of giving speeches within areas of the United States, he peaked in year two, with a sharp contraction evident in the volume of speeches over the rest of his first term. For the rest of the presidents, every census region shows a marked increase during year four over their other three years in office. Reagan in 1983 and 1984 in the South is the only exception to the four census regions over six separate administrations. By examining presidential speeches by census region, clear regional preferences emerge both as a general trend and as specific inclinations for individual presidents. It also again offers evidence that presidents generally prefer to go places during election cycles and tend to speak throughout the United States less when not campaigning. Presidents, as a general trend, concentrate their speeches in census regions most beneficial towards their particular goals. From the 1900 to 1990 census, the South and Midwest regions 57

PAGE 61

both held the largest percentages of House of Representative seats. With Census 2000, the West drew even with the Midwest, each having 23 percent of total seat distribution though the South dominates with 35 percent. Beginning with 1940 Census onwards, the Southern census region has maintained the largest percentage of House seats. Both the South and West Census regions have seen their percentage of House seats grow between Census 1900 and 2000 while the remaining two regions have declined (National Atlas, 2007). This growing and remaining importance of both the South and Midwest helps explain why presidents concentrate more speeches in these regions. The rapid growth of the Western census region rationalizes why presidents concentrate speeches there during election years. In the 1940 Census, the Western region held only 11 percent of the total seats of the House of Representatives. By 2000, that number had risen to 23 percent. With approximately a quarter of the entire House of Representatives from that region, the corresponding growth in votes for the Electoral College has also exploded. Therefore, a plausible explanation for speechmaking drawing from Table 3-3 suggests presidents concentrate their speeches in Census regions with the greatest number of voters. Presidents within these regions additionally concentrate speeches during election years. Table 3-4 furthers this argument by generally showing within all regions presidents give more speeches in election, and especially their own reelection years. 58

PAGE 62

CHAPTER 4 MEDIA MARKETS When Richard Nixon spoke, he could reach upwards to 90 percent of the American public at the same time through television (Foote, 1990:169). These numbers will unlikely ever be replicated on a regular basis again. Americans still watch news, but network audiences have receded. The Pew Center in 2004 reported (Pew, 2004) since 1998, less than 40 percent of Americans regularly watch nightly network news. They also reported people indicated they watch local news over 55 percent of the time. Though viewers for both network and local news have slightly trended upwards since 2000, local holds a roughly 20 percent point lead. In 2004, Pew (Pew, June 8, 2004) reported 59 percent of Americans regularly watch local as compared to 34 percent watching network news and 42 percent read the newspaper. Lang and Lang (2002) assert the increased access to mass media by the public has resulted in an information paradox. Experience and participation now function separately instead of in conjunction with each other. “As the media bring the world closer, the more intimate acquaintance with – the product of direct involvement – is replaced by a more superficial knowledge about the things outside one’s purview and beyond the horizon” (Lang and Lang 2002:198). In addition, this gained information is “mediated knowledge; it depends on what the media systems disseminate yet under no circumstance can the picture replicate the world in its full complexity” (Lang and Lang, 2002:198). The mass media constructs a skewed sense of reality where individuals primarily rely upon a surrogate to provide their electoral knowledge. We, as a body of voters, primarily do not participate in election based activities to derive our opinions. Instead we look to media outlets to help us construct our opinions. Whatever the comparison, local news scores the highest (Pew, July 30, 2004) as the media source where people pay the most attention. Nationally broadcasted speeches cannot be relied 59

PAGE 63

upon to pull large enough audiences. In 2004, the State of the Union broadcast was beaten soundly by the television show, American Idol (Media Life, 2004). The State of the Union drew a top ratings share for 18-49 year olds on Fox with a 4.5 while American Idol pulled an 11.9 for the same demographic group on the same night. As we become less information seeking from sources other than media outlets for knowledge while our national attention diverts away from large scale broadcasts of messages, presidents must become more aware of varying ways to get their messages across. These numbers suggest local media outlets appear the most promising. Local media could allow presidents to simultaneously fulfill voter needs for information while customizing it for a specific audience. It is feasible to suggest presidents may focus upon local media markets for their own reelection periods, but as Figure 2-2 indicates, there is also a bump in speechmaking during year 2 in every administration following Ford. Kaid and Foote (1985) show that when the president is in a news story with a member of the House or Senate, the news piece received better placement and was longer (65). Therefore, it is distinctly beneficial for a member of Congress to have the president present if they are attempting to increase exposure. In midterm campaigning season, the president would undoubtedly provide a sort of ‘incumbency advantage’ if the president was of the same party as the candidate. How can we study whether presidents prefer national or local media markets? The U.S. census allows us to examine speeches regionally, but lacks the fine distinctions to look into specific locations within regions or even states. When you consider places like Florida, Miami is culturally, socially, and politically radically different from Tallahassee. If different locales within geographical regions have drastically diverse population compositions, is it possible to eliminate spatial considerations in favor of another scale? Can we reconceive regionalism as 60

PAGE 64

similarities between correspondingly sized metropolitan areas regardless of geography? In other words, do cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia have more in common with each other given their size than they do with smaller cities in their same states like Albany, Sacramento, Springfield, El Paso, and Harrisburg? Do presidents give speeches in specific cities based more on their size or location? Media Markets Media Markets offer alternative measurement for political scientists to capture regionalism within America. One way to explore these questions is through the use of Designated Media Markets (DMAs). Media markets do not inexplicably stop at a state’s boundary. Instead, they tend to include entire vicinities where the local television stations are primarily received and transmitted. For some places, these markets may cover a huge swath of geographical space while less area in others. Most important, because market sizes can greatly affect advertising revenue, A.C. Nielsen updates their list every year and has become their industry’s standard for these scales. Marketing research has been on the cutting edge of developing techniques to better understand American behavioral attitudes and patterns. Consequently, we cannot simply be viewed in geographical terms. America exists as a collection of 210 media markets broken apart by DMAs. These media markets sometimes align along Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), but encompass a greater area, and in smaller markets, more than one MSA. Coined by A. C. Nielsen Media Research, a DMA refers to an area covered by a television station. The size and thus, ranking, of the DMA is calculated by determining the number of television households within that vicinity. In addition, DMAs also gauge the ratio of the area’s total population in relation to the total population of the United States. Considering 98 percent of all American households own one television, and 75 percent own more than one set (Albarran, 2002:229), most Americans households are captured by these Designated Market Areas. 61

PAGE 65

Arbitron’s ABIs and later Nielsen’s DMAs are ranked by television household size. They are listed from the number one market (New York City) to the smallest market numbered 210 (usually Glendive, Montana). Media markets generally offer greater latitude of flexibility that constrains geographical scales. DMAs are remarkably reliable and adaptable. Markets are ranked and updated every year for the television audience. They track growth in areas, but are not simply confined to city or county borders. They reflect the number of people who receive television broadcasts in that area so marketers can accurately charge or sell advertising time. For presidential speeches, DMAs reasonably reflect to an administration how many people will potentially see their speech on the local news. Most notably, media markets offer a viable approach towards managing the Washington, DC area. Washington, DC encompasses not only its district but also parts of Maryland and Virginia. Within the census based model, speeches in Arlington, Virginia were assigned to the South though in all likelihood, the intended audience varied little from a general Washington, DC speech. Media markets offer a solution to these fixed boundaries. By determining the assigned media market for a city, it would be recorded by that city’s rank for that particular year. The project employed commercially available records by broadcasting journals that provided the assigned market for individual cities. Next to every city’s rank and name includes the number of television households. These population numbers can also be ranked or sorted according to household concentrations. Why Are Market Areas Important? Market areas offer flexibility for nuances lost with geographical boundaries. Designated Market Areas, when collated together into general sizes, should show what sizes of cities presidents prefer to give speeches (if any). Geographical regionalism (i.e., Census) may not produce nuanced enough results to fully understand presidential speechmaking strategy. Market 62

PAGE 66

areas show if presidents seek maximum media penetration in speeches outside Washington, prefer to go places with more limited audiences, or seek specific electorate types. To determine the usefulness of media markets, it is paramount to accurately gauge the concentration of presidential speeches in these markets over time. Do presidents prefer to give speeches in larger or smaller markets? How can we adjust for these changes over time? As cities have grown larger in size during the past forty years, is it possible to skew results if we only look at the number of television households? One solution is to collate results based upon market rank. Since the scale has ranged from 1 to 210 (ABI for 1969 is ranked 1 to 100, but the all speeches were located within these markets) for almost all of its existence, ranking by number eliminates the problem of increasingly larger cities. FIGURE 4-1 First term speeches by media market 010203040506070NixonFordCarterReaganGHWBushClintonGWBushPresidencyPercentage Markets Ranked 1-25 Markets Ranked 26-50 Markets Ranked 51-75 Markets Ranked 76 &Higher Figure 4-1 and Table 4-1 shows the percentage of presidential speeches within media markets that are ranked by number. They consider the top 25 markets from 1969-2004 as the same not focusing on particular individual markets. Markets are collated from 1-25, 26-50, 51-75, and 76 and higher. The Washington, DC market (generally ranked between 6 to 8) has been 63

PAGE 67

removed from the rankings. The DC market encompasses the largest number of presidential speeches, and skews the top 25 ranking. However, the most important aspect of the DC market is that it picks up all speeches in the area regardless of where they are given geographically. Though presidents tend to give many speeches at the White House, they also commonly give others in Virginia and Maryland. Through the use of media markets, all these speeches are captured within that market and not divided between DC and its nearby states. By breaking out the three categories about every 25 markets, it provides a fairly reliable scale considering the majority of speeches tend to occur between 1 and 75. In 1969, markets ranked lower than 75 contained less than 200,000 television households and in 2004, less than 400,000. Rankings are informative because they take into consideration populations have increased in cities over time. In 1969, only 8 markets were a million or more television households, by 1981, 14 had this many households and by 2004, 28. TABLE 4-1 Percent of first term speeches in ranked media markets President 1-25 26-50 51-75 76& higher N Total Nixon 46.2 17.3 9.3 27.1 225 Ford 51.9 16.8 10.8 20.5 601 Carter 55.6 16.5 14.3 13.6 412 Reagan 55.6 20.6 8.9 15.0 360 Bush 41 56.1 18.7 9.9 15.3 647 Clinton 61.3 16.2 9.5 12.9 765 Bush 43 44.1 20.8 15.4 19.8 819 All the Presidents examined beginning with Nixon until George W. Bush seem to generally speak increasingly more in the largest markets within the United States. In addition, every president after Nixon and before George W. Bush gave more speeches in the top 25 markets than any of the other market areas combined. Table 4-1 suggests presidents tend to concentrate their overall speechmaking in the largest markets while giving fewer speeches in smaller locations. 64

PAGE 68

George W. Bush signals the most dramatic shift in presidential speechmaking by market in about 30 years. These ranked markets suggest most presidents prefer to give speeches in the larger markets in the United States and generally spend significantly less time in markets numbered 26 and higher. George W. Bush breaks with previous administrations by publicly speaking in smaller market areas at far greater frequency than other presidents. He gives only 44.1 percent of his public speeches in the largest media markets in the United States. This percentage is lower than any other overall administration in this study. Richard Nixon in his first term gave the second fewest speeches at 46.2 percent between 1969-1972. Since then, every other president in his first term gave considerable more speeches. In markets ranked 26-75, George W. Bush gave more speeches than any other president in this study. It is particularly notable because overall speechmaking in markets ranked 51-75 is markedly higher than any other administration with the exception of Jimmy Carter. In markets ranked higher than 75, George W. Bush has given more speeches than every president since Ford. Clearly, the George W. Bush presidency suggests a significant shift in presidential speechmaking patterns has occurred during his administration. He has moved away from focusing upon the largest markets towards a more diffused approach. In many ways, this presidency indicates a major change with previously established patterns focusing its efforts on smaller television market areas within the United States. This lends credence to the ideas that recent administrations perhaps have targeted local media markets in order to convey messages. However, are these patterns universally present across every year in the first term of an administration? In other words, do the presidents in this study exhibit similar characteristics across the ranked media markets for every year of their term? Do these patterns change during midterm or reelection years? 65

PAGE 69

Table 4-2 provides some interesting results that show every first term administration cannot be easily quantified into one universal schema. It is best to perhaps summarize some of the overall generalities and then delve into more specifics about individual administrations. TABLE 4-2 Percent of total first term speeches in ranked media markets by yearly counts President Year 1-25 26-50 51-75 76 + N Total Nixon 1969 40.5 8.1 8.1 43.2 37 Nixon 1970 43.9 18.3 7.3 30.5 82 Nixon 1971 45.2 19.4 14.5 20.9 62 Nixon 1972 56.8 20.5 6.8 15.9 44 Ford 1974 34.7 36.7 0.0 28.6 49 Ford 1975 59.4 16.5 9.0 15.0 133 Ford 1976 51.6 14.6 12.6 21.2 419 Carter 1977 51.1 15.5 22.2 11.1 45 Carter 1978 46.5 22.8 15.8 14.9 101 Carter 1979 53.3 14.7 18.7 13.3 75 Carter 1980 62.3 14.1 9.9 13.6 191 Reagan 1981 65.7 22.9 8.6 2.9 35 Reagan 1982 49.5 16.5 15.4 18.7 91 Reagan 1983 69.8 18.6 3.5 8.1 86 Reagan 1984 48.6 23.6 8.1 19.6 148 Bush 41 1989 55.6 12.1 10.1 22.2 99 Bush 41 1990 54.5 18.9 9.8 16.7 132 Bush 41 1991 68.9 16.9 2.8 11.3 106 Bush 41 1992 52.6 21.3 12.3 13.9 310 Clinton 1993 75.4 11.6 9.4 3.6 138 Clinton 1994 68.9 16.3 4.7 10.0 190 Clinton 1995 49.3 10.0 18.7 22.0 150 Clinton 1996 55.7 21.6 8.0 14.6 287 Bush 43 2001 43.6 23.3 17.3 15.8 133 Bush 43 2002 45.6 20.2 10.9 23.2 228 Bush 43 2003 51.9 22.2 12.6 13.3 135 Bush 43 2004 39.9 19.5 18.9 21.7 323 With the exception of Richard Nixon, total speechmaking for every first term administration dramatically spikes up during their reelection year. Nixon peaks in his second year in office and his speechmaking in the media markets throughout the United States visibly contracts every year afterwards. It really appears as if Nixon’s use of regional speechmaking almost shrivels with an administration turning inwards. Additionally, every administration with the exception of Nixon and Ford exhibit clear peaks of speechmaking in Congressional and 66

PAGE 70

presidential election years. In most cases, the media markets seem to indicate the off years of 1 and 3 seems almost reserved for minimized speechmaking regionally in the United States. Again, these patterns help lend credence to the idea campaigning appears more seasonal than permanent throughout the United States. It is obvious some administrations prefer certain sized markets to others. Ronald Reagan, for example, gave approximately 88 percent of all speeches in 1981 and 1983 in media markets ranked 1-50, with over 65 percent of these in the largest markets in the United States. During election years, his speechmaking patterns in the media markets altered dramatically. In both 1982 and 1984, his speechmaking in the top media markets dropped to slightly less than 50 percent. At the same time, he went from giving between 3 and 8 percent of speeches in the smallest media markets in 1981 and 1983 to around 19 percent of his total speeches in media markets for 1982 and 1984. In terms of actual speeches, in 1981, Ronald Reagan gave exactly 1 speech in the smallest markets. In 1983, he gave 7. In the Congressional election year of 1982, he gave 17 speeches in these smallest markets, and in 1984, 29. In essence, Ronald Reagan obviously preferred giving speeches in the largest media markets of the United States, but would change pattern and speak other places during election years. Chapter 5 looks at election speeches within these media markets and shows this pattern emerges even more prominently when focuses on specific speech types. For George H. W. Bush, there is not as obvious a pattern within the media markets. In fact, Table 4-2 indicates a reversal of Reagan’s example for the largest media markets. In George H. W. Bush’s case, he appears to give more speeches in the largest markets during the non-election years of 1 and 3. During the Congressional and presidential reelection years, he gives fewer speeches in the largest markets while giving considerably more speeches in the 67

PAGE 71

markets ranked 26-50. In this sense, George H. W. Bush appears to generally prefer giving speeches in a wider diversity of media markets than many other presidents. He, like Reagan, seems to favor larger media markets overall, but does spend quite a bit more time in the smaller markets. The most unusual year for the George H.W. Bush administration seems to be his third year in office. During 1991, he gave almost 69 percent of all regional speeches in the largest media markets within the United States with a considerable decrease in speechmaking in other markets as compared to the other years. According to Table 4-2, Bill Clinton appears to have a somewhat bimodal presidency in terms of speeches within media markets. In 1993 and 1994, Clinton gave 85 percent or more of his total speeches in media markets ranked 1-50. In the smallest two markets, he gave less than a total of 15 percent in those same years. For the remaining two years of his presidency, Clinton exhibits a distinctly different speaking pattern within the same media markets. This change is likely attributed to the dramatic Republican Congressional election successes in 1994. In 1994, Bill Clinton gave 68.9 percent of all regional speeches in the largest media markets within the United States. This particular number is higher than any other president in this study in that market area during a Congressional midterm election year. In contrast, his third year in office (the off-election year) has the fewest number of speeches in the top media markets in the country than any other president with the exception of Richard Nixon. In 1995, Clinton gives 18.7 percent or 28 speeches in the media market ranked 51-75. He gives more speeches in this market area in 1995 than any other year in his first term. Clinton also gives 22 percent or 33 speeches in the smallest market areas of the United States in 1995 as well. While he gives more by volume in 1996 (42 speeches) he gives a higher percentage of market speeches in the smallest area during 1995 than in his own presidential reelection year of 1996. Table 4-2 shows that Clinton 68

PAGE 72

spent considerable more time in the smallest markets in the United States during his last two years as opposed to his first two. While Table 4-2 lacks the nuance to concretely describe strategy, it is plausible to suggest Clinton sought to shore up support for the Democratic Party in the country. Chapter 5 will introduce tables that look at where Clinton spoke during these years by Electoral College representation that will help support this notion. In Table 4-2, George W. Bush displays significantly different patterns than any of his predecessors in this research. Generally, George W. Bush gave a smaller percent of speeches in the top media markets than any president since Nixon. During 2004, George W. Bush gave less than 40 percent of his total speeches in the top 25 markets within the United States. This total is lower than any other year since 1969 with the exception of 1974 with Gerald Ford. Considering Ford did not even assume the presidency until August 9 th of that year, it is a somewhat fair assumption to conclude 1974 was a unique situation. Additionally, by 2004, all the top 25 media markets included 1 million or more television households (compared to about 617, 000 during Ford). In short, the largest media markets in the United States in the first term of George W. Bush reached higher number of households than ever before, yet he spoke in a smaller percentage of these markets than any other president in 35 years. George W. Bush gave a higher percentage of speeches in the two smallest market areas in his first term presidential election year than any other administration within this study. This Bush presidency is also distinctive when looking at the smallest media market categories. George W. Bush, while giving more speeches on the whole in the smaller markets goes to more media markets 76 or higher during Congressional or presidential reelection years. In 2001 and 2003, Bush went to these markets only 39 times compared to 123 total in the years 2002 and 2004. 69

PAGE 73

While Table 4-2 demonstrates presidential speechmaking patterns in media markets can change depending on the year, do presidents spend more time in certain market areas at different points during their first term in office? Table 4-3 shows each media market area partitioned individually by each first term administration. Instead of showing which market areas individual presidents focused in each year, Table 4-3 allows us the ability to see if any market areas were given more attention than others over their first terms in office. It is yet another way to help ascertain if presidents give speeches through media markets in a consistent manner or if they prefer different market sizes in different years. If presidents tend to give more speeches in specific markets during Congressional or presidential reelection years here as well, it helps establish the idea that presidents prefer giving speeches in a cyclic pattern more than a regular pattern that does not vary much from year to year. Table 4-3 again substantiates the findings about Richard Nixon in Table 4-2. Nixon did not spend more time in 1972 giving speeches in specific media markets compared to other years he was in office during his first term. For every other administration (except 51-75 for Clinton in 1995), presidents gave the highest number of speeches in each media market category during their presidential reelection year. The most notable example occurs in the smallest media market category ranked 76 and higher. During 1972, Richard Nixon gave only 11.5 percent of all his speeches in that area for his first term. Every other administration average minimally slightly higher than 40 percent or more for that same year for their own first term in office. For every market category in the Nixon administration’s first term, he gave fewer speeches in his fourth year than in 1970 and 1971. The only exception is the smaller market group (76 and higher) where Nixon gave more speeches in his first two years than in the last two. 70

PAGE 74

TABLE 4-3 Percentage of speeches by size of media market by year of presidential administration President Year 1-25 26-50 51-75 76 + Nixon 1969 14.4 7.7 14.3 26.2 Nixon 1970 34.6 38.5 28.6 40.9 Nixon 1971 26.9 30.8 42.9 21.3 Nixon 1972 24.0 23.1 14.3 11.5 Nixon Total 104 39 21 61 Ford 1974 5.4 17.8 0.0 11.4 Ford 1975 25.3 21.8 18.5 16.3 Ford 1976 69.2 60.4 81.5 72.4 Ford Total 312 101 65 123 Carter 1977 10.0 10.3 16.9 8.9 Carter 1978 20.5 33.8 27.1 26.8 Carter 1979 17.5 16.2 23.7 17.9 Carter 1980 51.9 39.7 32.2 46.4 Carter Total 229 68 59 56 Reagan 1981 11.5 10.8 9.4 1.9 Reagan 1982 22.5 20.3 43.8 31.5 Reagan 1983 30.0 21.6 9.4 12.9 Reagan 1984 36.0 47.3 37.5 53.7 Reagan Total 200 74 32 54 Bush 41 1989 15.2 9.9 15.6 22.2 Bush 41 1990 19.8 20.7 20.3 22.2 Bush 41 1991 20.1 14.9 4.7 12.1 Bush 41 1992 44.9 54.5 59.4 43.4 Bush 41 Total 363 121 64 99 Clinton 1993 22.2 12.9 17.8 5.1 Clinton 1994 27.9 25.0 12.3 19.2 Clinton 1995 15.8 12.1 38.4 33.3 Clinton 1996 34.1 50.1 31.5 42.4 Clinton Total 469 124 73 99 Bush 43 2001 16.1 18.2 18.3 12.9 Bush 43 2002 28.8 27.1 19.8 32.7 Bush 43 2003 19.4 17.6 13.5 11.1 Bush 43 2004 35.7 37.1 48.4 43.2 Bush 43 Total 361 170 126 162 Speeches for Gerald Ford increased in each media market for every year he was in office. These findings should not be considered overly exceptional since Ford’s 1974 presidency lasted only four months. In fact, given the short time he was in office that year, Ford gives quite a few speeches especially in the markets ranked 26-50. The majority of Ford’s speeches in every market occur in 1976, the year he ran for election. This abundance of speeches in his presidential election year is not especially exceptional. He is our only president who was never 71

PAGE 75

elected to either the presidency or vice presidency, and these results help suggest he traveled extensively during his election year to help bring himself to the American people. The most notable evidence appears in the 76 and higher category. During his term in office, Ford gave more speeches in these smallest media markets than any other president with the exception of George W. Bush. With 72.4 percent of all these speeches in an election year, Table 4-3 suggests Ford targeted these small markets while seeking election. In Table 4-3, Jimmy Carter appears to be a president who gave the majority of speeches in the various media markets groups during Congressional or presidential election years. Almost 60 percent or more of all speeches Carter gave in each of the media market categories occurred in either 1978 or 1980. Also, Jimmy Carter in terms of volume gave far more speeches in the largest media markets within the United States than all the other categories combined. In 1980, Jimmy Carter gave 119 speeches in the largest media markets in the United States. This number alone is much larger than the other media market categories for all four years added together collectively. Carter focused on larger media markets in general, but did pay attention to others during election periods in the United States. Ronald Reagan displays some similarities, but overall a different sort of pattern when dealing with the American public. During Reagan’s first term, the most noticeable differences involve the larger two categorical groups (1-25, 26-50) and the smaller two groups (51-75, 76 and higher). Reagan definitely gave more speeches in the larger media markets within the United States. He spoke during 1984 in these markets more than the other three years, but overall, he did give a considerable amount of speeches in these markets from 1982-1984. The smaller markets ranked after 50 are a completely different matter. Ronald Reagan largely did not speak in any of these markets at any appreciable volume in his first term in office. Moreover, 72

PAGE 76

over 80 percent of these speeches were Congressional and presidential election years. Table 4-3 suggests Ronald Reagan overwhelmingly preferred the largest markets within the country. It also seems to indicate Reagan gave speeches in these markets, it was primarily during election years. George H. W. Bush (or Bush 41) is both simultaneously similar and different from Ronald Reagan during these first terms. As Table 4-3 shows, Bush gave far more speeches in the largest markets than he did in the smaller ones. He differs from Reagan with the amount of speeches he gives in the smaller media markets. During his first term in office, George H. W. Bush gave almost double the number of speeches given by Reagan in the smaller two media market categories. However, both Reagan and Bush gave more speeches in the largest media markets for every year they were in office. After you look past the largest market grouping, more of a cyclic pattern in media market type speeches surfaces during the George H. W. Bush administration. With the exception of Bush giving the same number of speeches in the smallest media market in 1989 and 1990, the pattern of more speeches in year 2 and 4 of a presidential administration appears. For three of the four categories, the percentages of speeches from 1989 to 1990 grew considerably. Then for every market type except the largest, year 3 (1991) saw a tremendous drop off of the percentage of speeches given. Finally, the presidential election year of 1992 sees massive growth in the number of speeches given in all media markets in America. At a minimum, speeches doubled in every category for that year with the two middle types (26-50 and 51-75) experiencing more than 50 percent of all the speeches during his term given in that year alone. In Table 4-3, Bill Clinton’s first term has some similarities as well as differences from previous administrations. By volume, Clinton spoke more in every media market category than 73

PAGE 77

any previous president. These findings should not be too surprising since Table 2-1 shows that Clinton spoke more frequently than any other president examined in this project. Also, like every other first term administration in Table 4-3, Clinton spoke in the largest media markets more often than the smaller ones. Bill Clinton, however, has some distinctive traits that make his administration stand out from the others. First, both in terms of volume and percentage, Clinton spoke more in the largest media markets during his first year in office than any other administration in Table 4-3. While the top 25 media markets during Clinton’s first term peak in years 2 and 4 with fewer speeches in years 1 and 3, he did give a fair amount of speeches every year in these locations. The second category (26-50) in many respects is somewhat unremarkable and adheres to the similar pattern found in Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, as well as George W. Bush. The remaining two groupings (51-75 and 76 and higher) are far more interesting. In the third classification group (51-75) Clinton spoke more often in his first year and his second. It is evident Clinton did not focus on these media markets during the Congressional election year of 1994. In the wake of the Republican takeover of Congress in the November 1994 election, Bill Clinton changes his speaking pattern in these markets sharply in 1995. For most first term administrations, their third year in office is not the high point of speaking in media markets throughout the United States. In this respect, Bill Clinton shares a unique honor with Richard Nixon. Both presidents spoke more in the 51-75 media markets during their third year at a higher percentage than any other area. However, unlike Nixon who gave by volume only 9 speeches, Clinton gave 28. On the surface, it appears as if Bill Clinton was attempting to build support as well as pay attention to media markets following a disappointing election period. Chapter 5 will show Clinton gave over 60 percent of his total 74

PAGE 78

1995 speeches in states carried by the Democrats in 1992. These findings help corroborate that Clinton was attempting to shore up these media markets in preparation for his 1996 reelection campaign. Interestingly, Clinton spoke less markets ranked 51-75 in 1996 than the previous year. While the other 4 market areas saw more speeches, Clinton did not speak during his presidential reelection year in these specific market ranges at the same rates as he did in 1995. There may be similar goals in the smallest media markets in the United States as well. In the first terms of Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, each administration gave fewer or the same number of speeches between years 1 and 2. Year 3 saw a drop off from year 2 and the presidential reelection year saw a large increase in the number of speeches. Bill Clinton diverges from these 4 other first term administrations. For every year he was in office, Clinton gave more speeches in the smallest markets within the United States. In the Clinton years, these markets had less than 375,000 television households. It seems Clinton did spend more time in this market category during 1994 than in 1993. However, for possibly the same reasons discussed above for the 51-75 market grouping, Clinton increased his speechmaking here in 1995 over 1994. Between these two smallest market types, Table 4-3 suggests Clinton found a renewed interest in the locations with fewer television households than he had during his first two years in office. George W. Bush’s first term in office sets itself apart from the other administrations in Table 4-3. There are quite a few reasons why this particular presidency is distinctive. The most important difference involves the volume and location of speeches. George W. Bush gave more speeches in the smaller three media market groupings than any other president in Table 4-3. He gave more speeches in markets ranked 51 or lower than any other president. For reference, in his administration, these markets are approximately the size of Jacksonville, FL or Louisville, KY. 75

PAGE 79

With the exception of Richard Nixon, George W. Bush was the only president in Table 4-3 to give more speeches in the three smaller media markets together than in the top 25 markets cumulatively. When looking at Table 4-3, it becomes apparent George W. Bush took a diffused approach to speaking in television markets within the United States. Bush behaves much like other administrations by speaking more in all markets during years 2 and 4 and not as much in years 1 and 3, but the volume is much more pronounced. Moreover, in the smallest markets, Bush spends far more time during Congressional and presidential reelection years than at other times. Year 3 (2003) for George W. Bush comes across as a year where he spoke far less in the media markets throughout the United States. For the three smaller media market categories, 2003 was the year Bush spoke the least in all of them. Table 4-3 offers clear evidence that in terms of media markets, presidents tend to give speeches throughout the United States in a cyclical manner. They almost always speak more during their reelection years, with most also showing a spike in Congressional reelection years as well. This pattern, particularly with the steep decline in speeches during their third year in office helps support the notion that presidents do not engage in a permanent campaigning model for speeches throughout their first terms in office. It is also apparent that as the media markets get smaller, the presidents tend to increasingly go into them just during election years. Finally, George W. Bush surfaces as a significant change in the way presidents speak in the media markets throughout the United States. It is simply not enough to suggest George W. Bush was behaving like previous presidents. His speaking pattern throughout the markets is quite unique and worthy of examination. He gave more speeches in the country’s media markets than any other president in this research. Bush also gave tremendous attention to smaller media markets while not focusing on the largest ones in the United States. This change suggests the George W. 76

PAGE 80

Bush administration was acutely aware of the importance of local media and utilized it to its advantage especially in election cycles. It also suggests they carefully identified areas where a speech could have significant electoral impact. So, do presidents concentrate or diffuse speeches when looking at media markets? Evidence from the tables in this chapter suggests both are the case depending on the presidency and situation. Table 4-1 provides an aggregated look at speeches by media market categories for all the first term presidencies from Nixon to George W. Bush. From this initial look, every administration except Nixon and George W. Bush give over 50 percent of all their speeches in the largest media markets. However, on a broad view of Table 4-1, every president concentrates speechmaking in the largest markets within the United States. George W. Bush stands out at the only president who diffuses speeches within the media markets more than any other. Most presidents tend to diffuse speeches between two market categories, but others are neglected. George W. Bush’s speeches by media market appear as a conscious attempt to diffuse as many speeches as possible throughout different sized markets within the United States. Table 4-2 adds another nuance to Table 4-1 by analyzing the same categories of speeches within media markets by individual years. Table 4-2 shows the yearly percentages instead of the aggregate percentages of Table 4-1. Table 4-2 attempts to answer if speeches are concentrated or diffused by administrations uniformly or in patterns. Again, the answer appears to be both, though more regular patterns seem present beginning with the Reagan, or perhaps even Carter administration. The Nixon administration has already been discussed in this chapter, and it is reasonable to suggest patterns of both Nixon and Ford reflect a presidency in crisis. One is a presidency attempting to thwart increasing public pressure and the other mired in the aftermath of a resignation and traumatic scandal. After these presidencies, we are left with some with and 77

PAGE 81

some without yearly patterns. However, if one considers partisanship, particularly for the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter, more regularity in Table 4-2 materializes. Carter looked to the strong Democratic urban cores in the 1980 for his reelection. Clinton, on the other hand, pursued a more suburban approach to campaigning in 1996. Thus, the higher concentration of speeches in the largest media markets during 1980 makes sense while every other fourth year for subsequent presidencies saw a marked diffusion in this market area. Presidential speeches by quantity for every administration after Ford peak in years 2 and 4. As a general trend (with the aforementioned exception of Carter), every administration diffuses speeches throughout these market categories during the same years. Table 4-2 shows most presidents tend to concentrate speeches in the largest markets during non-election years and diffuse them into smaller areas in election ones. Even George W. Bush is not immune from this pattern. On the contrary, he emerges as one of the strongest adherents to this generalized pattern. While in terms of aggregate speeches, he gives more in smaller markets overall, but Table 4-2 reveals the bulk of those primarily occurs in election years. Table 4-3 adds a final layer towards understanding speechmaking by media market through looking not at speeches across markets, but within them. This table provides an opportunity to further explore if presidents concentrate or diffuse speeches within market categories during their first term in office. Again, Nixon and Ford are exceptional for reasons already outlined. However, beginning with Carter, the smaller the media market category, generally more likely the president concentrated his speechmaking there during years 2 and 4, otherwise known as the election years. This concentration of speeches is particularly noticeable during their own presidential election year. In the largest media markets during the Reagan and George H. W. Bush presidencies, there appears to be more of a diffused approach to speechmaking until their 78

PAGE 82

fourth year in office. Both presidents seemed to like larger areas of the United States, these preferences may have affected these results. The tables in Chapter 4 tend to show presidents concentrate speeches by quantity on election years. During these election years, most presidents are likely to diffuse these speeches throughout a wider spectrum of media market categories than during non-election years. Notable exceptions exist, but the pattern itself remains fairly consistent. When a president or Congress is not up for election, speeches concentrate in the larger media markets. The uniformity of these patterns across time suggests cyclical patterns of concentration and diffusion based on election seasons. In Chapter 5, examining the media markets and census regions for election speeches only will extend these notions further. By also examining speeches by the Electoral College turnout in the previous presidential election, we will see how some presidents tend to play towards their base and how George W. Bush further fails to conform to that pattern. 79

PAGE 83

CHAPTER 5 ELECTION ONLY SPEECHES AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE Going Public Samuel Kernell’s book, Going Public: New Strategies for Presidential Leadership , published in 1986 engages this material during a period of heightened presidential speechmaking in Washington, DC. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Reagan all gave over 60 percent of their public speeches in that city. In fact, Reagan (who was in office when the book was first published) perhaps epitomized the image of a presidency who spent a majority of its time either in DC or presidential residences such as Camp David or his personal home at Rancho del Cielo in California. Presidents seem to prefer to use tools at their disposal they consider the most comfortable. Reagan, a product of the motion picture studio system, gave the most speeches in DC since Lyndon Johnson’s second term. Public speeches in Washington, DC give the chief executive a tremendous level of control over his public image. During Reagan’s first term 85 percent of all Washington speeches were given from the White House or the Executive Office Building. This suggests perhaps Reagan preferred a cultivated and controlled setting to a less defined one in the Washington, DC area. Other presidents since then have also largely adhered to a similar percentage of DC speeches within the White House or Executive Office buildings. Speeches in these locations grant a tremendous level of control for both security and access. In this ‘bubble’ within DC, chief executives can more easily convey information they want while risking little to their public image. Kernell’s ‘going public’ thesis suggests presidents bypass the legislative branch and make direct appeals to the public. They lobby the public to support executive policies and urge their elected representatives in Congress to behave as delegates rather than trustees. Kernell’s original work posits itself upon the notion of national level appeals. While president’s still occasionally 80

PAGE 84

‘go public’ in this nature, they are far more likely to go public on a regional level. Presidents go to smaller locations in the country to exert more nuanced pressure upon Congressional representatives. In addition, presidents may prefer places that have been more favorable to them in previous electoral cycles (or their party), or places more receptive or have the potentially to be swayed in later elections. In other words, George W. Bush will likely not go to Boston, but may go to a more Republican location in Massachusetts. Ultimately, what do numbers imply? Presidents speak more, but have largely concentrated fewer of their speeches in the Washington, DC area during the election years. The focus of this research narrows in on the question of speech location during modern presidency era. Has the concept of going public shifted since Kernell’s original work, and if so, how? If we agree presidents indeed ‘go public’ during their presidencies, can we look at the process in differing ways? During their terms in office, presidents have the ability to speak anywhere and generally on any topic. Almost any occasion where the president speaks publicly will draw attention from a local, if not national or international audience. When a president makes the choice to speak, it becomes a matter of public record, permanently archived in his public papers. Therefore, it can be somewhat safe to assume every president carefully chooses his words on most occasions, scripted or unscripted. Additionally, when a president makes the choice to speak in a particular location, it can be inferred the administration or the man has made a conscious choice to interact with the public or media. Sometimes, it is not as important what he says, than where he says it. Has the president decided to draw attention to a locale for a specific policy purpose, or is he attempting to connect with the public? If going public truly means, as Kernell opens with in his book “the ultimate object of the president’s designs is not the American voter, but fellow politicians in Washington” (Kernell, 1997:ix) does where matter? This research contends that 81

PAGE 85

presidents ‘go public’ in a very real sense every time they speak in public regardless of audience. They are accutely aware their words carry meaning, and they have the choice to remain silent or address reporters, crowds, or even individuals. In the post-Watergate world of the media, presidents likely are especially careful with their words because any misspeak or omission could potentially have dramatic consequences on their polling numbers (i.e., Clinton’s assertions about Monica Lewinsky; Carter’s Malaise speech). Presidents speak to affect their bargaining strength in Washington. The more people support the president on a variety of issues, the stronger his position is to sway policy. Parties as well as candidates target voters to gain the widest appeal. Office seekers, or their supporters, aim to locate the largest cluster of voters possible. Successful candidates have to reinforce voters by rallying their base, persuading the undecided towards support, and occasionally converting opponents (often following a primary when the party candidate has to woo supporters within other intra-party factions). However, has the nature of going public shifted since Kernell’s original idea? Do presidents still utilize the national media or Washington, DC in the same ways? Have they embraced a greater idea of regionalism during the modern presidency era? More over, has the regionalism always been there, but since we generally focus upon geographical concepts over population concentrations have we ignored key elements in speechmaking? Permanent Campaign The permanent campaign revolves around the concept elected officials constantly pursue sustaining their position. For most, this manifests itself as reelection though it can leak into popularity status. With a positive public image and solid polling numbers, elected officials trade on their status and reputation as a means to persuade the public towards their positions. In this sense, the ideas of permanent campaigning and going public are linked. They derive energy by 82

PAGE 86

using elements inherent in each other to pursue similar aspirations of influence and power maintenance. Sidney Blumenthal (1982) says “image-making is expressed in a particular kind of strategy, and the politician who is created by it and uses it successfully to win absorbs it as a philosophy of governing” (20). Blumenthal goes on to posit “the permanent campaign is truly a program of statecraft. It seeks to restore the legitimacy of the state by maintaining the credibility of politicians. Credibility is verified by winning, staying in power. And legitimacy is confused with popularity” (23-24). Hence, governing and campaigning to govern meld into an intractable cycle. Neither can exist without the other since a politician pulls authority from status rather than trust. However, for this model to truly work, the politician has to be eternally engaged in the campaign process. In other words, practically every speech or appearance functions not simply as a means to inform the public, but to shore up votes for subsequent elections periods for themselves or their party. Therefore, it should be expected that number public appearances should maintain roughly similar intensity all years in office. Permanent campaigning means constant commitment to the goal of perpetuating tenure in an elected position. Bruce Miroff pushes this idea further by cultivating the idea of the ‘presidential spectacle’ where speeches and events are also endowed with symbolic meanings where the actors “through actions establish their public identities” (2003:279). Miroff points out spectacles do not “permit the audience to interrupt the action and redirect its meaning” (2003:279) because their focus is not upon the exchange of information. Instead, they offer a presentation of a fully formed message not open for discourse. Thus, every exchange, every interaction with the media exists for the sole reason of promoting the image and agenda of the president. In a very real 83

PAGE 87

sense, the presidential experience recasts itself in soap operatic proportions. Individuals become broadly drawn characters with policy positions distilled into sound bytes that promote cognitive shortcuts. People exist as hyperboles of themselves with flaws and shortcomings magnified. Presidents are cast as protagonists with the media as the chorus. Chief executives constantly seek validation from the public (or audience) so they permanently campaign as a way to continue the story line. “Thus, while some of the endless appeals for public approval are quite direct, many others are so indirect that ‘the people’ and their thinking are mere fodder for framing issues and controversies for elite consumption” (Heclo, 2000:16). Fiorina et al. (2007) frame an entire textbook around the belief of permanent campaigning. They describe it as “campaigning never ends; the next election campaign begins as soon as the last one has finished, if not before” (Fiorina et al., 2007: 11). They push the concept even further by asserting permanent campaigning means “the line between campaigning and governing disappears” (Fiorina et al., 2007, 12). Permanent campaigning controls all functions and aspects of an administration. Governance takes on a new meaning since it always is colored by the background of the next election period. In essence, permanent campaigning forces separations between campaigning and governing to erode because they cannot exist independently. For all intensive purposes, idea of the permanent campaign has engrained itself into the public consciousness. We accept the notion presidents continuously engage in a campaign-oriented administration largely because the media as well as academics have often accepted it as truth. Should we question the notion of the permanent campaign as perhaps being merely an illusion? Certainly, we live in a heightened period of national governmental awareness, but how much of it is ‘spectacle’ over substance? Is it possible the belief of the permanent campaign may be less tangible than previously thought? There is no disputing the fact the volume of 84

PAGE 88

presidential speeches has dramatically increased over the past 40 years. However, has their sheer volume coupled with increased presidential travel confused campaigning with something else? Have we mistaken campaigning for simple chattiness? Figure 2-2 and Table 2-2 show speechmaking particularly outside of Washington, DC waxes and wanes. Presidents may give a large number of speeches annually, but location matters. Table 2-2 points out the percentage of speeches within Washington, DC vacillate considerably depending on the year. Years 2 and 4 see a notable decline of Washington, DC speeches in favor of ones throughout the United States. If permanent campaigning truly exists, we would expect to see uniform levels of speechmaking. Instead, we see distinct and uniform patterns across presidencies where speechmaking peaks in election years. Diane Heith (2004) rejects the notion of the permanent campaign. Through carefully examining the presidential polling she finds that presidents do not use the exact same methods at all times. She posits the institution of the presidency “has included a campaign style in the presidential toolbox of indirect tools” (Heith, 2004:136). However, this particular tool of campaigning “has not trumped or triumphed over traditional relationships and approaches to governing” (Heith, 2004:136). Her findings help corroborate the findings located in Chapters 2-4 that presidential speeches tend to wax and wane on cycles often pegged to election years within the United States. However, after examining the results within the previous chapters, the most obvious question asks ‘is it possible to determine the types of speeches within census regions or media markets?’ Do presidents simply talk more in election years, or do they give election-based speeches? Fortunately, the answer relies within the Public Papers of the President . Every speech contained within the papers is assigned a title and the contents of each spoken event are 85

PAGE 89

transcribed. Within each first term presidency beginning with Nixon and ending with George W. Bush, this research culled the speeches to create an assemblage of election only speeches. Here, election type speeches are defined as all speeches that involve campaign, election, or party related activities aimed at electoral activity. While many speeches included in this category focus upon first term reelection activity, congressional election stumping, specific fundraising and speeches involving cities where presidents are campaigning for themselves along with local, state, or national candidates are part of this category. More specifically, these speeches are comprised of ones with titles such as “Meeting with ”, “Event for ”, “Event for ”, “Remarks event or fundraiser”, and “Remarks . Census Regions Table 5-1 examines the percentage of defined election speech as a total of all speech each year a president is in office. It reveals that while each president tends to give election speeches every year in office, there are also patterns present within the speechmaking. Table 5-1 reaffirms the finds in previous chapters that speechmaking for the chief executive has a cyclic nature. In particular, election speeches peak in the congressional and presidential election years during first terms in office. As likely expected, election speeches are typically at a minimal during as administration’s first year in office (with the exception of Ford who began during a Congressional election year). The second year in office often shows a remarkable increase in the percentage of election speeches for the overall yearly total. Two presidencies, Reagan and Clinton stand out as having fewer than 10 percent of speeches during their second year designated as election type speeches. 86

PAGE 90

TABLE 5-1 Percentage of election type speech in first term administrations President Year First Term Election Speech Total of All Speech Election Speech as a percent of Total Speech Nixon 1969 7 273 2.6 Nixon 1970 37 231 16.0 Nixon 1971 3 175 1.7 Nixon 1972 27 171 15.8 Ford 1974 28 157 17.8 Ford 1975 32 419 7.6 Ford 1976 172 702 25.5 Carter 1977 6 333 1.8 Carter 1978 37 362 10.2 Carter 1979 7 293 2.4 Carter 1980 80 469 17.1 Reagan 1981 11 268 4.1 Reagan 1982 36 388 9.3 Reagan 1983 16 423 3.8 Reagan 1984 87 487 17.9 Bush 41 1989 20 443 4.5 Bush 41 1990 72 483 14.9 Bush 41 1991 15 521 2.9 Bush 41 1992 122 579 21.1 Clinton 1993 13 687 1.9 Clinton 1994 50 684 7.3 Clinton 1995 17 554 3.1 Clinton 1996 138 650 21.2 Bush 43 2001 11 556 1.9 Bush 43 2002 96 590 16.3 Bush 43 2003 43 444 9.7 Bush 43 2004 167 592 28.2 These findings are interesting because in 1994 Clinton lost a huge number of Congressional seats at the midterm. Gerald Ford gave the highest percentage of election type speeches during a Congressional election in 1974. However, these results should be tempered with some skepticism since he assumed the presidency in the middle of a reelection period (August 1974) and was forced to immediately campaign to help salvage Republican seats in Congress (though unsuccessfully). When looking at raw volume of speeches both Bushes post the highest number of election speeches in their second year in office. George W. Bush is of particular interest. During 2002, 16.3 percent of all his speeches that year were election speeches. This percentage is higher than any other administration that was fortunate enough to 87

PAGE 91

have a normal second year in office. It is evident that George W. Bush devoted considerable time and energy towards campaigning for Republican congresspersons. These results are important because George W. Bush was the only president in recent memory to also gain seats in the midterm elections. Turning to presidential election years, almost all administrations in Table 5-1 show the highest number of election speeches occur in this year. The only exception to this pattern is Richard Nixon in 1972. These results also help affirm previous findings that suggest Nixon withdrew from public speaking as his presidency disintegrated and the Watergate investigations intensified. Not only did Nixon give fewer speeches every year he was in office, but also his percentage of election speeches declined from 1970. Nixon stopped giving speeches in general, but also pointedly did not campaign either. The Ford administration’s 1976 election year is also anomalous in the context of other administration. Gerald Ford in that year gave 25.5 percent of his total speeches as election speeches. In other words, a full quarter of all the speeches in that calendar year were devoted towards either his own election or the election of members of the Republican Party. These high percentages are understandable since Ford was appointed to the vice presidency and later presidency instead of elected by the people. Ford needed to sell himself to the American people and Table 5-1 shows he devoted considerable energy to this endeavor. By volume, he gave more election speeches than any other president in Table 5-1, and the only president to even approach the same number of speeches was George W. Bush 28 years later. Following Ford, the next four presidencies fall into two distinct patterns. Though volume during presidential election years goes up for each successive first term administration, percentages of election speech remain somewhat stable between Carter/Reagan and George H. 88

PAGE 92

W. Bush/Clinton. The percentage of election speech between 1976 and 1980 varies by only .8 percent. The difference between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton is even close with only a tenth of a percent difference when comparing the percentage of election speech in 1992 and 1996. If Gerald Ford is ignored, presidential election year election type speech has steadily increased in a somewhat stable manner. Table 5-1 seems to indicate that the growth tends to plateau while marginally increasing followed by a presidency that devotes even more time to election campaigning. George W. Bush falls into this pattern neatly though the validity of this configuration will not be fully apparent until after the 2012 election season. While Bush seems consistent in this respect, he is also important because he has given more election speeches than any other president in Table 5-1. In 2004, 28.2 percent of all the speeches he gave that year were election speeches. This total is considerably higher than any preceding administration in Table 5-1 including Gerald Ford. George W. Bush committed a huge amount of time campaigning during his reelection year. Thinking about the census regions of Chapter 3 and the media markets of Chapter 4, do the patterns of presidential speeches change when focusing solely upon election-oriented speeches? Taking into consideration Table 5-1 shows patterns in speechmaking, can the patterns present in these previous chapters be seen again when just focusing upon the election speeches? Table 5-2 looks at the election only speeches within the census regions of the United States. Some of the numbers vary slightly from Table 5-1’s totals because every president tends to give a few speeches in Washington, DC. However, the majority of election speeches are not in Washington, DC for any administration studied. Occasionally, there will exist a fundraiser but 89

PAGE 93

these DC speeches are usually less than 5 percent of the total election type speeches with a typical volume of 2 or 3. TABLE 5-2 Percent of first term election only speeches in census regions (excluding Washington DC, foreign, or presidential residences) President Northeast South Midwest West N Total Nixon 20.6 36.5 31.7 11.1 63 Ford 14.7 33.5 35.3 16.5 218 Carter 23.5 37.8 29.4 9.2 119 Reagan 14.4 28.8 33.3 23.4 111 Bush 41 16.4 40.2 34.1 9.3 214 Clinton 23.5 25.7 28.9 21.9 187 Bush 43 17.1 28.5 36.9 17.4 298 Table 5-2 narrows in on the specific election only speeches instead of overall speech totals. This table functions as a more specific gauge than Table 3-3. Table 6 presents the overall total speeches within the census regions. Table 5-3 confirms the original findings of Table 3-3 that the majority of first term presidential speeches tend to occur in the South or Midwest regions of the United States. The best way to compare the two tables is to look at the numbers. For example, on Table 3-3, Richard Nixon gives 18.5 percent of his total first term speeches in the Northeast census region. Table 5-2 tells us that 20.6 percent of those total speeches on Table 3-3 were election speeches in the Northeast region. Are there specific trends we can observe about election speeches in Table 5-2? Some immediately apparent results are quite obvious. First, the Western census region is quite curious. When comparing Tables 3-3 and 5-2, the other three regions generally have more Election specific speeches given in them than overall speeches. The significant exception to this pattern is the West. Every presidency with the exception of George W. Bush gave fewer election speeches in the West than they gave overall total speeches in the West. In essence, this means that most did not focus on the West with election speeches. George W. Bush breaks with this 90

PAGE 94

pattern. Of all his speeches during his first term (from Table 3-3), Bush gives 14.9 percent of his speeches in the West. Of these speeches, 17.4 percent (from Table 5-2) were the percentage of his overall election speeches committed to the Western census region. The Midwest region is almost completely opposite. Between Tables 3-3 and 5-2, the percentages of election speeches for every president were higher than for overall speeches. In other words, presidents give quite a bit of attention to the Midwest during election periods. The South presents very similarly to the West in how presidents give speeches there. For every president except Richard Nixon, they give more overall speeches in the South than they give Election speeches. However, the percentage of speeches in the South census region is considerably higher than in the West. Most presidents give between 30 and 40 percent of their total regional speeches in the South and no president gave 25 percent of these speeches in the West. In his first term, George W. Bush gave 38.3 percent of all his regional speeches in the South. Of these Southern region speeches, 28.5 percent were election speeches. While the number does drop, it also tells us that over a quarter of all the speeches he gave in the South were devoted to elections. Nixon again was the exception to this general rule. He gave only 29.7 percent of his total speeches in the South and 36.5 percent of them were election speeches. These results tell us that Nixon focused more on the South when he had to give election speeches. The Northeast region is a bit more complex to dissect. Roughly half the presidents (Nixon, Ford, Clinton and George W. Bush) gave a higher percentage of election only speeches there than the percentage of their overall speeches. The other half (Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush) gave a smaller percent of election speeches in the Northeast than their overall speech percentages. In short, some presidents preferred giving speeches in the Northeast, and others 91

PAGE 95

preferred going to the other areas when they were campaigning. From this perspective, it is difficult to simply generalize the Northeast as the stronghold for one political party or the other. The next obvious question asks if the results from Table 5-2 change depending on the year of the presidency. Table 5-3 provides the yearly breakdown of Table 5-2 to show where presidents give their yearly total election speeches by census region. Table 5-3 indicates the numbers of election speeches for almost every first term administration are concentrated in Congressional and presidential election years. The only exception to this pattern is the Gerald Ford administration. As in the case of other tables, the Ford administration gives more speeches (or in this case, election type speeches) every year he is in office. These results simply confirm the unusual nature of the Ford presidency assuming office during a Congressional election season and then essentially needing to increase his exposure to the American people. If you do not consider Ford, every other president until George W. Bush gave less than 15 election speeches in the year after midterms and before presidential elections. Bush breaks strongly with other first term administrations and gives a phenomenal 41 campaign speeches during his third year in office. While some states like Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Virginia and Kentucky do have off year gubernatorial elections, most elections in the United States cycle with the Congress and presidency. In 2003, the major gubernatorial races were Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kentucky. While Bush did begin fundraising for his own 2004 bid during that year, he also campaigned to help the Republican Party win these races and they did in Mississippi and Kentucky. Louisiana was a closely contested race with a narrow Democratic Party victory. Thus, it makes sense that 43.9 percent, or 18 election speeches were given in the South by George W. Bush in 2003. He gave more attention by campaigning to winning these governor’s 92

PAGE 96

seats than any other administration on Table 5-3. It also fits in with the overall election speech patterns by volume emerging in Table 5-3. George W. Bush presents as a distinct change from other first term presidents. It’s also important to point out that by percentage, Bush spoke less in the Northeast than any other presidents other than Reagan with a full four year term. However, by volume, given the high number of speeches Bush gave in 2002, he gave a higher number of speeches in the Northeast (12) than any other administration to date during that second year in office. TABLE 5-3 Percent of election speeches in census regions by election only type speeches President Year Northeast South Midwest West N Total Nixon 1969 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 3 Nixon 1970 17.6 32.4 41.1 8.8 34 Nixon 1971 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 3 Nixon 1972 22.7 40.9 22.7 13.6 22 Ford 1974 0.0 32.0 48.0 20.0 25 Ford 1975 31.0 24.1 27.6 17.2 29 Ford 1976 14.0 35.4 34.8 15.9 164 Carter 1977 33.3 50.0 0.0 16.7 6 Carter 1978 25.7 37.1 28.6 8.6 35 Carter 1979 40.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 5 Carter 1980 20.5 39.7 30.1 9.6 73 Reagan 1981 25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 8 Reagan 1982 8.3 16.7 20.8 54.2 24 Reagan 1983 0.0 60.0 30.0 10.0 10 Reagan 1984 17.4 26.1 39.1 17.4 69 Bush 41 1989 35.3 47.1 11.8 5.9 17 Bush 41 1990 15.2 33.3 33.3 18.2 66 Bush 41 1991 41.7 33.3 8.3 16.7 12 Bush 41 1992 11.9 44.1 39.8 4.2 118 Clinton 1993 62.5 0.0 0.0 37.5 8 Clinton 1994 28.9 18.4 42.1 10.5 38 Clinton 1995 27.3 27.3 9.1 36.4 11 Clinton 1996 19.2 29.2 28.5 23.1 130 Bush 43 2001 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 4 Bush 43 2002 13.8 37.9 28.7 19.5 87 Bush 43 2003 9.8 43.9 19.5 26.8 41 Bush 43 2004 15.6 20.1 50.0 14.3 154 Table 5-3 shows that for most administrations, the volume of election speeches varies widely depending on the year in office. When it comes to election speeches, presidents do not, 93

PAGE 97

as the phrase may suggest ‘continuously campaign’ either for themselves or others, but instead concentrate election oriented speeches during years with election contests. Table 5-3 attempts to show that both volume and regional locations tend to change based on the election year in question. Taken together with Table 5-4, they both help present a picture of how presidents give election type speeches in census regions throughout their presidencies. Table 5-4 totals the election speeches within each census region for each first term administration and shows the distribution of where they occur throughout the presidency. For example, in the Northeast in Richard Nixon’s first term in office, he gave 13 speeches. Of those 13 speeches, 46.2 percent of them were in 1970 and 38.5 percent of them were in 1972. Though Nixon’s totals are quite a bit lower in each region compared to other administrations, it is apparent that Nixon almost exclusively gave election type speeches during the second and fourth years of his term. From this perspective, it becomes easier to see how election type speeches primarily occur almost exclusively in the congressional midterm election year and the presidential election year. Regional preferences during specific years as well as administrations are almost transparent in Table 5-4. Richard Nixon gave far more speeches throughout the United States’ census regions during 1970 than in 1972. The most obvious region lacking in election speeches is the Midwest in 1972. In 1970, Nixon gives 14 speeches in the Midwest and only 5 during 1972. Table 5-4 reveals Gerald Ford’s behavior more in line with other presidencies when examined from this perspective. He, like every other in Table 5-4, gives more speeches in the South and Midwest census regions than any other location during their first term. He also gives over 70 percent of all his election speeches in 1976, the year he sought election for the first time. 94

PAGE 98

TABLE 5-4 Percentages of election type only speeches by census region by presidential administration by year President Year Northeast South Midwest West Nixon 1969 7.7 8.7 0.0 0.0 Nixon 1970 46.2 47.8 70.0 50.0 Nixon 1971 7.7 4.3 5.0 0.0 Nixon 1972 38.5 39.1 25.0 50.0 Nixon Total 13 23 20 6 Ford 1974 0.0 10.9 15.6 13.9 Ford 1975 28.1 9.6 10.4 13.9 Ford 1976 71.9 79.5 74.0 72.2 Ford Total 32 73 77 36 Carter 1977 7.1 6.7 0.0 9.1 Carter 1978 32.1 28.9 28.6 27.3 Carter 1979 7.1 0.0 8.6 0.0 Carter 1980 53.6 64.4 62.9 63.6 Carter Total 28 45 35 11 Reagan 1981 12.5 12.5 5.4 0.0 Reagan 1982 12.5 12.5 13.5 50.0 Reagan 1983 0.0 18.8 8.1 3.8 Reagan 1984 75.0 56.3 72.9 46.2 Reagan Total 16 32 37 26 Bush 41 1989 17.1 9.3 2.8 5.0 Bush 41 1990 28.6 25.6 30.6 60.0 Bush 41 1991 14.3 4.7 1.4 10.0 Bush 41 1992 40.0 60.5 65.3 25.0 Bush 41 Total 35 86 72 20 Clinton 1993 11.4 0.0 0.0 7.3 Clinton 1994 25.0 14.6 29.6 9.8 Clinton 1995 6.8 6.3 1.9 9.8 Clinton 1996 56.8 79.2 68.5 73.2 Clinton Total 44 48 54 41 Bush 43 2001 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.8 Bush 43 2002 30.0 39.3 22.7 32.7 Bush 43 2003 10.0 21.4 7.3 21.2 Bush 43 2004 60.0 36.9 70.0 42.3 Bush 43 Total 40 84 110 52 Table 5-4 helps establish Ford was very concerned about winning over the public in the census regions and gave a huge percentage of speeches in 1976. The most surprising fact is Ford gave zero election speeches in the Northeast during the Congressional midterm year of 1974. Granted, he assumed the presidency in August of that year, but every other president gave a few speeches in the Northeast during this midterm election year. From the results in Table 5-4, it 95

PAGE 99

seems Ford was not concerned about the helping Congresspersons in the Northeast seek election or retain their offices in that particular year. Jimmy Carter’s speeches in Table 5-4 have many things in common with other administrations. Like Nixon and George H. W. Bush, Carter gives the highest number of election speeches during his time in office in the South census region. He also does not give many election speeches in the census regions during 1977 or 1979. He gives the highest percentage of speeches during his presidential election year of 1979 in the census regions throughout America. Table 5-4 shows Carter to be a president who did give campaign speeches during Congressional midterms, but was far more interested in giving election speeches during his presidential election year. However, with the exception of the Northeast, the percentages of speeches across the other regions was fairly consistent indicating while volume may vary between them he did increase his speechmaking between 1978 and 1980 in a regular manner. Ronald Reagan appears in Table 5-4 as a president with definite preferences towards campaigning in the census regions. During Reagan’s first term in office, Table 5-4 indicates he did not spend much time on Congressional midterm election speeches. In fact, in 1982, Reagan gave only two election speeches in the Northeast for that entire year. Reagan, in the Northeast, gave one fundraising speech for a prospective governor of Pennsylvania and another at a function for delegates from the state of New York. Table 5-4 shows by volume, Reagan gave the majority of election speeches in the South and Midwest. Looking at the Northeast and Midwest, Reagan gave over 70 percent of his total election speeches during 1984 when he was seeking reelection. The West was more evenly split between 1982 and 1984, but the South was the most unique. Table 5-4 indicates Reagan gave more campaign speeches in 1983 than in 1982. While these actual numbers are pretty close together (4 in 1982 and 6 in 1983), it shows Reagan 96

PAGE 100

considered the off year gubernatorial elections in the South as important as the Congressional midterms. George H. W. Bush also concentrates the majority of his election speeches in his first term during his second and fourth years in office. He also gives the majority of speeches in the South and Midwest with over 60 percent of them occurring during his presidential reelection year. The most intriguing results involve the West census region. While the volume of speeches is considerably lower than in other regions, he gave far more election speeches during the Congressional midterm year than his own presidential election year. The only other president to post similar numbers was Nixon though George W. Bush did give more speeches in the South in 2002 than in 2004. When comparing Bill Clinton to George H. W. Bush, it is clear the two considered different census regions in the United States more important as areas of potential party strength. George H. W. Bush gave many more election speeches in the South and Midwest than Clinton. Clinton, on the other hand, gave more speeches in the Northeast and West census regions. Clinton contrasts with most other presidents in Table 5-4 for the sheer volume of speeches in the census regions. Unlike any other presidents with the exception of perhaps Reagan, Clinton gave a roughly similar number of speeches in each census region. Additionally, Clinton did give a substantial number of election speeches in each region during his first term in office. Unlike George H. W. Bush, Clinton did not focus election speeches in the West region until his reelection year of 1996. During that year, he gave 73.2 percent of his total speeches for that region. It is also the only region that does not indicate a large change when comparing it to the off election years of 1993 and 1995. Table 5-4 seems to show Clinton primarily focused on the West only when seeking his own reelection. A comparable statement could also be made about 97

PAGE 101

the South region in Table 5-4. Clinton gave almost 80 percent of his total speeches there during 1996. The Northeast and Midwest appear to have received far more election speeches in 1994 than the other census regions. However, the bulk of election speeches in Table 5-4 for all regions come in 1996 when Clinton was seeking reelection. Though not definitive, this table shows Clinton focused more on his own campaign year than those of for just Congressional elections. George W. Bush presents some of the more complex findings in Table 5-4. In the Midwest and West census regions, Bush gave far more election speeches than any other president in Table 5-4 during their first term in office. In the Midwest region, George W. Bush gives 22.7 (or a total of 25 speeches) percent during the Congressional midterm election year of 2002, but a full 70 percent of election speeches in 2004 when seeking reelection. These results seem to indicate that Bush only gave election speeches in the Midwest during election cycles, and more important, when he was in quest of his own reelection. The Northeast region also has a more cyclic nature, similar to the Midwest. By volume, George W. Bush gave considerably fewer speeches here than in other regions throughout the United States. In the Northeast, Bush does give speeches in Northeast during 2002, but doubles that amount in 2004. Table 5-4 also helps establish Bush did not campaign in the Northeast at the same levels as other areas and primarily only concentrates attention there when looking towards his own reelection. Considering how the Northeast has generally been considered less part of mainstream Republican constituencies, these findings are not too surprising. It appears George W. Bush only focused on the Northeast when he needed their support, but was not overwhelmingly inclined to give it to other candidates within his party. The West also appears unique in several respects. Bush gives more speeches there than other presidents in their first term in Table 5-4. He also 98

PAGE 102

gives a fair number of election speeches in the West during 2003. While election type speeches are at their highest percentage in 2004, it is clear Bush gave a solid number there each year after 2001. The South is exceptional because it is the only region where George W. Bush gave more election speeches in 2002 than in 2004. Bush obviously was interested in the Congressional midterm elections, as evidenced by his party’s gain of 8 seats, and gave quite a few speeches in the South campaigning in 2002. In 2003, he also supported the elections of governors also apparent in the high percentage of election speeches given in the South that year. When seeking reelection in 2004, Bush did give the second highest number of election speeches in the South, but by volume, he gave 31 in the South compared to 77 in the Midwest. Table 5-4 indicates George W. Bush did spend time and think the South was important, but he concentrated the majority of his election speeches in the Midwest census region while seeking reelection to the presidency. Given the key importance of Ohio in the 2004 elections, it appears the Bush administration narrowed in on that swing state early and devoted considerable time and energy there. By looking at the census regions, it is possible to show that presidents prefer certain areas of the country to others when they give election speeches. Most foremost findings from both Tables 5-3 and 5-4 are that presidents simply do not give election type speeches on a continual or permanent basis. They primarily give election speeches during election years for Congress or the presidency. Some presidents also give more speeches in their third year in office in the South census region when specific governors seek election. Previous chapters show that speech volume tremendously increases during Congressional and presidential election years. The fact election speech mushrooms in the same years cannot simply be a coincidence. Taken together, it lends evidence to the idea that presidents do not permanently campaign during their entire first 99

PAGE 103

terms in office. Instead, they relegate campaigning to specific periods closer to the actual event itself. The next question then becomes, do presidents give more election speeches in certain types of media markets than others. By examining the media markets presidents give these types of speeches in, we see certain patterns emerge. Media Markets TABLE 5-5 Percentages of first term election only speeches by media market rank President 1-25 26-50 51-75 76& higher N Total Nixon 45.2 19.4 8.1 27.4 62 Ford 51.2 17.7 8.8 22.3 215 Carter 57.9 15.1 11.8 15.1 119 Reagan 45.5 20.9 11.8 21.8 110 Bush 41 52.6 22.5 11.5 13.4 209 Clinton 61.6 13.6 11.3 13.6 177 Bush 43 46.8 19.3 12.9 21.0 295 Table 5-5 explores the percentages of the election only speeches given by presidents in their first term divided by media market categories. This table focuses in on just the election speeches and in many ways is a complement to Table 4-1. Table 4-1 similarly matches Table 5-5 with the exception that it includes all the speeches given in the media markets during these presidents’ first terms in office. The first noticeable comparison between the two tables is the percentages between them in each category largely remained stable. There are some clear differences in specific administrations, but most of the changes do not have high fluctuations. One of the most conspicuous differences is in the top 25 markets for Ronald Reagan. During his first term on Table 4-1, Reagan gave 55.6 percent of all his speeches in these largest markets. However, on Table 5-5, only 45.5 percent of his election speeches occurred in the same market range. This 10 percent difference helps suggest that Reagan did not give election speeches in these markets as often as he spoke in them when not giving election speeches. If Reagan is 100

PAGE 104

speaking in smaller markets during election periods, where is he going? Table 5-5 indicates this shift primarily went to the smaller media markets in the United States ranked higher than 76. Table 4-1 shows that throughout his first term Reagan gave only 15 percent of speeches in these smallest market areas. However, according to Table 5-5, he gave 21.8 percent of all his election speeches in the same area. If you calculate out the numbers, this means 44.4 percent of all speeches Reagan gave in these smallest markets were election-oriented speeches. As a comparison, only 25 percent of all the speeches Reagan gave in the top 25 markets during his first term were election speeches. In general, Table 5-5 shows that some presidents prefer giving election speeches in large markets, and others in smaller ones. George W. Bush is prominent given the fact his election speech totals are substantially higher than any other administration in Table 5-5. Bush spent far more time giving election speeches than his counterparts in this table. Bill Clinton gave the highest percentage of election speeches in the largest markets in the United States with 61.6 percent. In terms of percentages, Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush all gave less than 50 percent of election speeches in the largest media markets in the United States. They also gave some of the highest percentages of election speeches in the smallest markets. One of the remarkable findings is both the high number and percentage of speeches George W. Bush gave in these smallest markets. Since these markets are ranked, it is reasonable to assume the larger markets have dramatically grown in size over the past 35 years. In fact, more and more Americans are currently living in the largest 25 markets in the United States than ever before. After Ronald Reagan, the percentage of election speeches the next two presidents gave in these smallest markets was quite low. George H. W. Bush gave only a total of 28 election speeches in these smallest markets, and Bill Clinton gave only 24. George W. Bush almost 101

PAGE 105

tripled their number of election speeches in these markets by giving 62 speeches there (numbers found on Table 5-7). Table 5-5 helps show that a distinct shift seems to occur in election speeches during the first term of George W. Bush. He gives more election speeches than any other previous administration since Nixon, but also spends dramatically more time in the smaller media markets. Table 5-5 lends support to the notion that George W. Bush embraced a more localized media market strategy compared to other first term administrations. However, do presidents change which media markets they give election speeches in based on the year? Table 5-6 looks at this yearly breakdown of the ranked media market speeches to see the percentages of speeches on yearly basis. TABLE 5-6 Percent of speeches in ranked media markets by election only type speeches President Year 1-25 26-50 51-75 76 + N Total Nixon 1969 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 3 Nixon 1970 34.3 17.1 5.7 42.9 35 Nixon 1971 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 3 Nixon 1972 61.9 23.8 4.8 9.5 21 Ford 1974 29.2 41.7 0.0 29.2 24 Ford 1975 74.1 18.5 3.7 3.7 27 Ford 1976 50.9 14.1 11.0 23.9 163 Carter 1977 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 6 Carter 1978 57.1 14.3 14.3 14.3 35 Carter 1979 80.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 5 Carter 1980 57.5 15.1 9.6 17.8 73 Reagan 1981 62.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 8 Reagan 1982 33.3 16.7 12.5 37.5 24 Reagan 1983 55.6 33.3 0.0 11.1 9 Reagan 1984 46.4 20.3 13.0 20.3 69 Bush 41 1989 50.0 18.8 25.0 6.3 16 Bush 41 1990 53.9 19.0 9.5 17.5 63 Bush 41 1991 61.5 38.5 0.0 0.0 13 Bush 41 1992 50.9 23.3 12.1 13.8 116 Clinton 1993 87.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 8 Clinton 1994 78.1 6.3 12.5 3.1 32 Clinton 1995 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 Clinton 1996 53.5 17.1 11.6 17.8 129 Bush 43 2001 25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 4 Bush 43 2002 47.8 18.9 6.7 26.7 90 Bush 43 2003 60.9 21.9 14.6 2.4 41 Bush 43 2004 43.5 18.0 15.5 22.9 161 102

PAGE 106

Table 5-6 also indicates that election speeches in the smallest markets tend to drastically increase during either Congressional or presidential election years. One of the most revealing findings involves the year before the presidential elections or for most administrations, the third year in office. For every president in Table 5-6, they gave markedly fewer election speeches in this year compared to the year before and year afterwards. However, the volume is not the only noticeable difference. For every administration in Table 5-6, these third year speeches were almost exclusively in the largest media markets in the United States. In other words, when presidents gave campaign speeches in this year, they were primarily just in extremely large markets. It is quite perceptible since in the Congressional or presidential election years most administration gave a lower percentage of their election speeches at this market level. One of the most intriguing presidencies in this regard is the George W. Bush administration in its first term. In 2001, Bush did not give many election speeches. However, in 2002, he gave 90, with the majority of them located in the largest and smallest media markets. In 2003, George W. Bush gave 41 election speeches in the nation’s media markets, far more than any other president in Table 5-6 for that year. However, unlike the general diffuse speeches throughout the markets in 2002, Bush gives 60.9 percent of election speeches in the largest media market with only 2.4 percent of them in the smallest. In 2004, Bush, while drastically increasing the number of election speeches given, gives a far smaller percentage in the largest media markets and again increases the number given in the markets ranked 76 and higher. Richard Nixon in 1970 presents some of the more unique findings on the entire table. That year, he gives 42.9 percent of all his election speeches in the absolute smallest market category in the United States. In fact, Nixon gave more election speeches in these smallest markets than in the largest ones. When he was seeking reelection to the presidency in 1972, Nixon shifts to 103

PAGE 107

giving the majority of these election speeches that year to the largest markets reversing the general pattern present in 1970. In fact in 1972, Nixon gave only 9.5 percent (or a total of 2 speeches) in the smallest markets in the United States. Gerald Ford in 1976 primarily gave the majority of election speeches in the largest and smallest media market categories. He concentrated most speeches there with comparably fewer in the two middle categories. Jimmy Carter always gave at least 50 percent of all his election speeches in the largest markets every year he was in office. He also did not give many election speeches at all when it was not either a Congressional or a presidential election year. Ronald Reagan in Table 5-6 gives more election speeches in the smallest media markets during 1982 than the largest. Reagan focuses upon a wider range of media markets for elections. George H. W. Bush is the first president in Table 5-6 to give a tremendously higher number of midterm election speeches than other administration. In 1990, he gives 63 election speeches, almost doubled over every other president other than his son who exceeds him by 27 speeches. George H. W. Bush during every year in office gives over 50 percent of all his election speeches in the largest media markets inside the United States. However, when it was not a Congressional or presidential election year, he did not give many speeches in the smaller markets in the country. Bill Clinton’s use of the largest markets is even more pronounced as a general trend than any other administration in Table 5-6. In 1994, 78.1 percent of all of his election speeches occurred in the top 25 media markets within the United States. By comparison, he gave a higher percentage of election speeches in the largest media markets and the lowest percentage of speeches in the smallest media markets than any other president in Table 5-6 during the Congressional midterm year. In 1995, Clinton gave all of his election speeches only in the top 104

PAGE 108

25 markets. When Clinton runs for reelection in 1996, he appears more like the other presidents in the table. He gives fewer election speeches in the top 25 markets, more speeches in the 26-50 ranges, and more election speeches in the smallest media markets than he gave any other year. Table 5-7 expands on Table 5-6 by showing which specific years did presidents concentrate the majority of their election speeches year during their first term in office. TABLE 5-7 Percentages of election type speeches by media market by presidential administration President Year 1-25 26-50 51-75 76 + Nixon 1969 3.6 0.0 40.0 0.0 Nixon 1970 42.9 50.0 40.0 88.2 Nixon 1971 7.1 8.3 0.0 0.0 Nixon 1972 46.4 41.7 20.0 11.8 Nixon Total 28 12 5 17 Ford 1974 6.4 26.3 0.0 14.9 Ford 1975 18.2 13.2 5.3 2.1 Ford 1976 75.5 60.5 94.7 82.9 Ford Total 110 38 19 47 Carter 1977 4.3 11.1 7.1 0.0 Carter 1978 28.9 27.8 35.7 27.8 Carter 1979 5.8 0.0 7.1 0.0 Carter 1980 60.9 61.1 50.0 72.2 Carter Total 69 18 14 18 Reagan 1981 10.0 8.7 7.7 0.0 Reagan 1982 16.0 17.4 23.1 37.5 Reagan 1983 10.0 13.0 0.0 4.2 Reagan 1984 64.0 60.9 69.2 58.3 Reagan Total 50 23 13 24 Bush 41 1989 7.3 6.4 16.7 3.6 Bush 41 1990 31.2 25.5 25.0 39.3 Bush 41 1991 7.3 10.6 0.0 0.0 Bush 41 1992 54.1 57.4 58.3 57.1 Bush 41 Total 109 47 24 28 Clinton 1993 6.3 0.0 5.0 0.0 Clinton 1994 22.3 8.3 20.0 4.2 Clinton 1995 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clinton 1996 61.6 91.7 75.0 95.8 Clinton Total 112 24 20 24 Bush 43 2001 .7 3.5 2.6 0.0 Bush 43 2002 30.9 29.8 15.8 38.7 Bush 43 2003 17.9 15.8 15.8 1.6 Bush 43 2004 50.4 50.9 65.8 59.7 Bush 43 Total 139 57 38 62 105

PAGE 109

Table 5-7 confirms many of the trends evidenced in Table 5-6. While not universally true, most presidential administrations in Table 5-7 give the majority of their election speeches during the year they seek reelection to the presidency. Nixon appears to again be the exception to this pattern. In every media market category except for the top 15 markets, Nixon gave more election speeches during 1970 than in 1972. These results help substantiate the idea Nixon was far more engaged in campaigning for the Congressional midterms than his own presidential reelection. Also as a common tendency, presidents gave the highest number of election speeches in the largest media markets in the United States. With the exception of Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, every other administration gave less than 30 speeches in the smallest media markets. More important, the smaller the markets, the more likely the administration was going to give the majority of election speeches there in the year he was seeking presidential reelection. When you look beyond the largest media markets of the country, several presidents do not appear to spend much time there giving election speeches. For example, Bill Clinton in 1996 gave 91.7 percent of all his election speeches for the 26-50 media markets in that year. Moreover, in the smallest markets, he gave 95.8 percent of his total election speeches in the same year. When looking at media markets, Bill Clinton presents a president who only gave election speeches in the smaller media markets when seeking his own personal reelection to office. Given the general nature of Clinton’s presidency, these speeches in smaller markets likely reflect attempts to mobilize the lingering elements of the Democratic base in many smaller locales in America. The George W. Bush first term administration again is a distinctly different than previous presidencies. In every media market category, Bush gave more speeches than any other administration in Table 5-7. He also gave considerable more attention to all the media markets 106

PAGE 110

in 2003. Every other administration in Table 5-7 completely skipped at least one of these categories during their third year in office. George W. Bush at least made an effort and gave election speeches in every group of markets that year. With the exception of Nixon, Bush also gave a smaller percentage of speeches in the largest media markets during his presidential election year. Taken all together, while the George W. Bush administration gave the most election speeches in 2004, it did not absolutely avoid or ignore giving these types of speeches throughout other categories, particularly after 2001. Compared to the other administrations in Table 5-7, Bush seems to devote more time campaigning in all sorts of media markets after his first year in office. Table 5-7 helps demonstrate along with other tables that George W. Bush embraced a more diffuse speechmaking approach during his first term in office. These election only speeches give us insight into the presidency when it is pursuing campaign oriented activity. Tables 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 look at these speeches in the census regions. As with previous chapters, presidents seem to concentrate speeches in the Southern and Midwest census regions. Bill Clinton on Table 5-3 seems to be an exception during his presidential election year of 1996. In that year, Clinton diffuses speeches throughout census regions, spending a large percentage of time on election speeches in the West. These results for Clinton do suggest a diffused approach given his home state is in the South. His percentage of speeches in the West was far higher than presidents who hailed from that region (Nixon and Reagan). Tables 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7 examine the media markets for election only speeches. As previously pointed out, presidents tend to concentrate more speeches in the largest markets. However, election speeches tend to be more diffuse than the overall total speeches, especially in election years. These media markets illustrate a diffused approach to election speeches becomes more likely during election years. 107

PAGE 111

Electoral College Over the past chapters, this project has developed the ideas that American presidents tend to give speeches, election or otherwise, in higher numbers during election years. Presidents also have a tendency to prefer certain census regions to others. For example, most American presidents give fewer speeches in the West than the other three census regions. Additionally, most presidents have given a majority of their total speeches in the largest media markets in the United States. This first part of this chapter has attempted to show that when narrowing in solely on speeches given promoting the election of themselves or other candidates, many of these patterns stay the same while others change somewhat. The final section of this chapter will examine the speeches given by these presidents via the Electoral College. Each first term administration’s speeches in the Public Papers are organized based on which political party carried the Electoral College in the previous election cycle. For example, Richard Nixon’s speeches are divided into categories based on which party won the states in the Electoral College in the 1968 presidential elections. Gerald Ford’s speeches are based on the Electoral College states in the 1972 presidential election. Technically, they are the only second term Electoral College (originally Nixon) used in the remaining tables. Jimmy Carter’s speeches are collated by the results of the 1976 presidential election. The remaining first term administrations follow the same logical structure. The Electoral College groupings are divided in the following manner in the tables. The Republican category indicates states won by the Republican Party. Democrat refers to states won by the Democratic Party. Independent means states carried by another political party other than the Democrats or Republicans. This category only applies in the 1968 election when George Wallace as the candidate from the American Independent Party winning Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. The remaining two groups are a bit more 108

PAGE 112

nuanced. In this project, a swing state is defined as a state won by a presidential candidate with less than 5 percent of the popular vote. ‘Swing State Won by Republican’ refers to a state won by a Republican Party presidential candidate with less than 5 percent of the overall popular vote. ‘Swing State Won by Democrat’ is the same as the other, except a Democratic Party candidate carried the state. TABLE 5-8 Percent of total speeches in Electoral College states won by party President GOP Swing State Won by GOP Democrat Swing State Won by Democrat Independent N Total Nixon 28.4 36.2 16.4 11.6 7.3 232 Ford 98.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 632 Carter 11.2 26.2 31.7 30.9 0.0 420 Reagan 73.6 19.7 1.9 4.8 0.0 375 Bush 41 62.5 24.2 4.9 8.4 0.0 694 Clinton 2.9 15.7 59.9 21.4 0.0 816 Bush 43 32.3 25.9 22.5 19.2 0.0 870 Table 5-8 describes the distribution of total presidential speeches by the Electoral College during their first terms. With the exception of Richard Nixon, every president gave the majority of speeches in their first term in states won solidly by their political party in the prior election cycle. The only exception to this pattern, Nixon, gave the majority of his speeches in Swing states ultimately won by the Republican Party. If the percentages of the successful party and swing state category are added together, every president with the exception of George W. Bush gave over 60 percent of their total speeches in these areas. Bush gave only 58.2 percent of his total speeches in these locations. George W. Bush is exceptional in Table 5-8 because every other administration does not give a significant percentage of speeches in the non-swing state category for the opposing party during their term in office. For example, Jimmy Carter gave only 11.2 percent of his total speeches in areas carried by Gerald Ford in the 1976 presidential election. Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton gave even fewer, with less than 5 percent in 109

PAGE 113

their corresponding areas during their first terms in the White House. These elections are important because in particular Carter and Clinton did not have overwhelming victories when they were elected to office for the first time. However, unlike these presidents, George W. Bush gave 22.5 percent of total first term speeches in states solidly carried by the Democratic Party in 2000. Do these patterns change when we examine these speeches on a yearly rather than an aggregate basis? The yearly distributions in Table 5-9 offer some interesting findings throughout the various presidencies. Richard Nixon’s speeches in Republican won states in 1968 declined markedly in 1972 when seeking reelection. He instead gave a greater number of speeches in the states won by the Democratic Party challenger, Hubert Humphrey. It is also notable that the percentage of speeches Nixon gave in swing states won by the Republican Party in 1968 decreased every year he was in office. The 1972 reelection of Richard Nixon was an overwhelming landslide with his challenger, George McGovern carrying only the state of Massachusetts and Washington, DC. With Nixon’s resignation, these 1972 Electoral College distributions were used for Gerald Ford’s presidency in Table 5-9. Given the results of that election, it should not be surprising that Ford gave between 95.7 to 100 percent of all his speeches in states that solidly supported the Republican candidate in the previous election. The results from the Jimmy Carter presidency are quite worthy of note. In general, Carter spoke less in areas carried solidly by Republican candidate Gerald Ford in 1976 than any other area. He also gave his fewest percentage of speeches in that area in his own presidential election year of 1976. The numbers seem to suggest that Carter shifted his speechmaking in the United States in 1980 to the areas won by Democrats in 1976. He especially gave a considerably more speeches in the swing states ultimately won by Democrats in 1980 than any other area. These 110

PAGE 114

numbers offer indications that Carter was attempting to shore up the areas of the United States in 1980 that supported him in 1976. Later in Table 5-10 when just election speeches are examined the results show this indeed seems to be the case. TABLE 5-9 Yearly total speeches by Electoral College outcomes President Year GOP Win Swing State GOP Win Democrat Win Swing State Democrat Win Independent N Total Nixon 1969 28.9 42.1 10.5 5.3 13.1 38 Nixon 1970 31.3 39.8 12.0 10.8 6.0 83 Nixon 1971 33.3 33.3 15.2 10.6 7.6 66 Nixon 1972 15.2 30.4 30.4 19.6 4.3 46 Ford 1974 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59 Ford 1975 95.2 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 148 Ford 1976 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 425 Carter 1977 10.6 34 31.9 23.4 0.0 47 Carter 1978 15.4 23.1 44.2 17.3 0.0 104 Carter 1979 10.5 32.9 30.3 26.3 0.0 76 Carter 1980 8.9 23.4 25.5 42.2 0.0 192 Reagan 1981 77.1 17.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 35 Reagan 1982 78.9 15.8 0.0 5.3 0.0 95 Reagan 1983 66.7 25.6 1.1 6.7 0.0 90 Reagan 1984 73.5 19.4 2.6 4.5 0.0 155 Bush 41 1989 60 20 7.6 12.4 0.0 105 Bush 41 1990 57.2 25.5 8.9 8.3 0.0 145 Bush 41 1991 52.8 28 9.6 9.6 0.0 125 Bush 41 1992 69.6 23.5 .3 6.5 0.0 319 Clinton 1993 .7 9.9 68.9 20.5 0.0 151 Clinton 1994 4.4 20.1 64.7 10.8 0.0 204 Clinton 1995 1.8 17.8 61.9 18.4 0.0 163 Clinton 1996 3.7 14.4 51 30.9 0.0 298 Bush 43 2001 45 19.9 23.2 11.9 0.0 151 Bush 43 2002 38.6 18.6 22.9 19.9 0.0 236 Bush 43 2003 34.5 22.3 34.5 8.8 0.0 148 Bush 43 2004 21.2 35.5 16.7 26.6 0.0 335 Ronald Reagan did not spend much time in states won by the Democratic Party in 1980 during his first term in office. However, because Reagan won by a landslide, this only involves the states of Minnesota, West Virginia, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland and Rhode Island. Reagan gave the majority of his speeches in states won solidly by the Republican Party in 1980, but he also did spend a fair amount of time in the swing states won by his party as well. George H. W. Bush did not carry as many states as Ronald Reagan when he first won the White House, but he 111

PAGE 115

did not spend a tremendous amount of time in states carried by the Democrats. In fact, in his presidential election year of 1992, George H. W. Bush considerably decreased his speechmaking to areas carried by the Democratic Party in 1988. This change seems to indicate he shifted focus primarily to states considered to be Republican strongholds. Between 1989 and 1991, George H. W. Bush gave a smaller percentage of speeches every year in states solidly carried by the Republican Party in 1988. Then, in 1992, these percentages significantly increase for that year. During 1990 and 1991, Bush was also increasing the percentage of his speeches in the swing states won by the Republican Party. In 1992, though the volume of speeches increased in this category, the overall percentage decreased as he focused more on the solidly Republican areas of the United States. Bill Clinton’s 1992 election to the White House was a contested race. While Clinton won the majority of seats in the Electoral College, with only about 43 percent of the popular vote, he did not win by a landslide. However, Clinton never gave large percentages of speeches in states solidly won by the Republican Party in 1992. While the percentages in the GOP Win category slightly increased in Congressional and presidential election years, he never gave speeches in these states at rates close to the other groupings. In the Swing States carried by the Republican Party in 1992, the percentage of speeches given by Bill Clinton peaked in the Congressional midterm elections of 1994. However, for the two years afterwards, Clinton gave a smaller percentage of speeches in these states every successive year. During his entire first term in office, Bill Clinton focused the majority of all his speeches in states solidly won by the Democratic Party in 1992. However, he did give a smaller percentage of speeches in this category for every year he was in office in his first term. While some the percentage of these speeches went towards swing states won by the Republican Party, the category with the biggest 112

PAGE 116

gains over his presidency were the swing states carried by the Democratic Party in 1992. While Clinton gave fewer speeches there in 1994, every year after that, he increased the percentage of speeches in this area. In terms of an electoral strategy in Clinton’s first term, it appears that he focused first on Democratic Party stronghold states. In the Congressional midterm year of 1994, he shifted some attention to the swing states won by Republicans in 1992. In 1995 and 1996, Clinton looks to have backed off that tactic by increasing the percentage of speeches in the swing states carried by the Democrats in 1992. When looking at the diffuse spread of speeches across these categories George W. Bush looks more like Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter than the other presidents in Table 5-9. During his first term in office, George W. Bush did not abandon any one of these Electoral College areas. It is interesting to note that Bush gave a smaller percentage of speeches in areas solidly won by the Republican Party in 2000 each year in his first term. He also gave an exceptionally high percentage of speeches in the states carried soundly by Al Gore in 2000. In Table 5-9, George W. Bush has a higher percentage of speeches given in states solidly won by the opposing political party than any other president. The 2004 presidential reelection year also has some interesting findings about where he gave speeches. George W. Bush decreased the percentages of speeches given in states soundly won by either party during the 2000 election. He increased the number of speeches given in the swing states won by both parties. In the swing states won by Republicans in 2000, Bush gave 35.5 percent of his speeches during 2004. This percentage was higher than any other category that year. Additionally, he delivered 26.6 percent of speeches in swing states ultimately carried by Al Gore in 2000. Essentially, Table 5-9 shows in 2004, George W. Bush focused primarily on the swing states for the 2000 election. When speaking anywhere in the country, he consistently gave more speeches in these areas that 113

PAGE 117

marginally supported either party in his first election. The only other president to even mimic a similar strategy was Richard Nixon in 1972. In the next table by focusing on just election only speeches during the first terms in office, we will see if these patterns hold. TABLE 5-10 Percentages of first term election speeches by Electoral College results President GOP Win Swing State GOP Win Democrat Win Swing State Democrat Win Independent N Total Nixon 35.4 33.8 18.5 10.8 1.6 65 Ford 98.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 219 Carter 9.2 25.2 31.1 34.5 0.0 119 Reagan 77.7 14.3 4.5 3.6 0.0 112 Bush 41 68.2 17.3 6.1 8.4 0.0 214 Clinton 1.6 14.5 58.6 25.3 0.0 186 Bush 43 25.4 31.1 19.1 24.4 0.0 299 Table 5-10 examines only the election speeches each of these presidents gave during their first term. This table functions as a complement to Table 5-8, which shows the overall speech totals during the same time periods. In Table 5-10, for every Republican first term administration except George W. Bush, the Republican presidents gave the largest percentage of election type speeches in states solidly won by their party in the previous election. Bill Clinton also gave his highest percentage of speeches in states soundly won by the Democratic Party. Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush are unlike any of the other first term presidents on Table 5-10. Each gave the majority of their election speeches in swing states during their first term. Specifically, Jimmy Carter gave the most in swing states won by the Democratic Party while George W. Bush gave them in the swing states won by the Republicans. How does Table 5-10 compare to Table 5-8? Did presidents focus election speeches in different categories than their overall speeches? Some presidents, Nixon, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, gave a higher percentage of election speeches in states solidly won by the Democratic or Republican Party in the previous presidential election. Jimmy Carter and Bill 114

PAGE 118

Clinton both gave a higher percentage of election speeches in swing states won by Democrats than in other areas when comparing the general differences between Tables 5-8 and 5-10. Again, George W. Bush’s speechmaking patterns appear extremely different than the generalized patterns for other first term administrations. In states won soundly by the Republican Party, every Republican president except Gerald Ford and George W. Bush gave a higher percentage of election speeches in this category than overall speeches. In many ways, Gerald Ford’s differences can be overlooked. There is only a .3 percent difference between the two tables (98.9 and 98.6) and these percentages are extremely high. George W. Bush, on the other hand, gave 32.3 percent of his total speeches on Table 5-8 in solid Republican Electoral College states and only 25.4 percent of his election speeches there. For all extensive purposes, he is the only president in this category who did not behave similarly to other first term presidents of the same party. In this specific category, Republican presidents tended to give more election speeches while Democratic presidents gave fewer in comparison. In ‘Swing States won by the Republican Party,’ George W. Bush is again unlike any other presidential administration in Tables 5-8 and 5-10. With the exception of Gerald Ford who gave zero speeches in this grouping, every other administration, Democrat or Republican, gave a smaller percentage of election than overall speeches. George W. Bush, on the other hand, had a higher percentage of election speeches than overall speeches. In essence, it means Bush spent more election time in these swing Electoral College states than any other administration in these tables. The soundly won Democratic states in the Electoral College are also unique for the George W. Bush administration. When comparing Tables 5-8 and 5-10, every Republican administration except George W. Bush gave a higher percentage of election speeches in this category than overall speeches. The Democratic administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton gave a smaller percentage of election speeches 115

PAGE 119

than overall speeches. Though not definitive, it helps support the notion that Republican presidents tend to go more into Democratic Party stronghold states more when they care campaigning. George W. Bush breaks with this general tendency and gave a lower percentage of election speeches in the soundly won Democratic Party Electoral College states than the percentage of his overall speeches in the same category. In the final category of Swing States won by the Democratic Party in the Electoral College, the same patterns between George W. Bush and other prior administrations in these tables remains consistent. Republican presidents did not give a higher percentage of election speeches in this category when compared to their overall speeches. Every Republican administration except George W. Bush was either neutral toward this grouping or gave a lower percentage of election speeches. In contrast, Democratic presidents gave a higher percentage of election speeches than overall speeches. George W. Bush also gave a higher percentage of election than overall speeches, suggesting he attempted to focus in on these states to help support candidates in election periods. Table 5-11 examines the yearly percentages of Election speeches by Electoral College divisions to help see if presidents change their speaking patterns depending on their year in office. These yearly percentages do show several important tendencies across the first term presidential administrations. In the first category of states solidly won by the Republican Party in the Electoral College, every Republican administration except George H. W. Bush gave a higher percentage of election speeches in their Congressional midterm election year (excluding Ford who gave the same percentage) than in their presidential reelection year. In the Republican Swing States, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush all gave a higher percentage of election speeches in this category during their presidential election year 116

PAGE 120

over their congressional midterm one. These results seem to indicate Republicans perhaps focused a higher percentage of their election speeches in solid Republican areas at the midterms. TABLE 5-11 Yearly percentages of election only speeches by Electoral College results President Year GOP Win Swing State GOP Win Democrat Win Swing State Democrat Win Independent N Total Nixon 1969 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Nixon 1970 40.0 34.3 11.4 14.3 0.0 35 Nixon 1971 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 3 Nixon 1972 27.3 36.4 31.8 0.0 4.5 22 Ford 1974 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 Ford 1975 93.1 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 29 Ford 1976 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 164 Carter 1977 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 Carter 1978 17.1 14.3 51.4 17.1 0.0 35 Carter 1979 20.0 60.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 5 Carter 1980 5.5 21.9 26.0 46.6 0.0 73 Reagan 1981 75 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 8 Reagan 1982 87.5 8.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 24 Reagan 1983 54.5 27.3 0.0 18.2 0.0 11 Reagan 1984 78.3 14.5 5.8 1.4 0.0 69 Bush 41 1989 64.7 5.9 17.6 11.8 0.0 17 Bush 41 1990 60.6 19.7 13.6 6.1 0.0 66 Bush 41 1991 46.2 23.1 7.7 23.1 0.0 13 Bush 41 1992 75.4 16.9 0.0 7.6 0.0 118 Clinton 1993 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 8 Clinton 1994 0.0 16.2 72.9 10.8 0.0 37 Clinton 1995 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 0.0 11 Clinton 1996 2.3 13.8 52.3 31.5 0.0 130 Bush 43 2001 75 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 Bush 43 2002 42.2 18.9 21.1 17.8 0.0 90 Bush 43 2003 35.7 21.4 30.9 11.9 0.0 42 Bush 43 2004 11.7 40.7 15.4 32.1 0.0 162 In their presidential election years, they (as well as Jimmy Carter) attempted to help encourage swing state areas that went Republican in the previous presidential election to support them in their reelection year. In the states soundly carried by the Democratic Party, both Carter and Clinton gave a considerably higher percentage of election speeches at the midterm than the presidential election year. With the exception of Richard Nixon, all other first term Republican in Table 5-11 gave a smaller percentage of election speeches in this category than they did in any 117

PAGE 121

other year. Additionally, Carter and Clinton did spend a fair amount of time in the Democratic swing states during their presidential election years. When examined comprehensively, Table 5-11 indicates that most Republican presidents prefer to give election speeches in states that strongly supported their party in the previous presidential election. Bill Clinton, though a Democrat, also exhibits a similar tendency toward states that supported his own party. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush do not fix this overall pattern. These presidents all gave higher percentages of speeches in swing states than states that soundly supported their party. Richard Nixon in many ways has been an outlier throughout this entire project. The election speech volume for Nixon in his presidential election year was a mere 22, compared to 73 for Carter and 163 for George W. Bush. However, if you focus just about Carter and George W. Bush, both gave the largest percentage of speeches when seeking presidential reelection in the swing states. In Carter’s case, he preferred the Democratic Party swing states with an election speech percentage almost double that of the other swing category. George W. Bush is not as obvious. In 2004, Bush gave only 11.7 percent of all his speeches in an area soundly carried by the Republican Party. Over 70 percent of all his election speeches that year were in swing states, 32.1 percent in the Democratic ones. These percentages are completely unlike any other Republican president in Table 5-11. Bush seemingly did not retreat to his strongholds or bases when giving election speeches like many other presidents. Instead, he actively went to the swing states in America at much high rates than any other administration in the last 35 years. Overall, do presidents seek to reinforce their bases or do they attempt to expand them through speechmaking? These Electoral College speeches allow us to attempt to answer this question by showing states they carried in the previous election. If presidents prefer speaking in 118

PAGE 122

states their party easily carried in the previous election, then they focus more on base reinforcing activities. If they give speeches primarily in swing states where the state was carried with only 5 percent of the vote, then presidents seem to prefer giving speeches to expand their base of support. Table 5-8 presents the total speeches in the aggregate given during a president’s first term sorted by the Electoral College. From this table, we see several Republican presidents engage in base reinforcing speechmaking. Ford, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush all gave well over 50 percent of their speeches in states easily won by their party in the previous election. Nixon’s election in 1972 was a landslide, so the overwhelming number of Ford speeches in Republican stronghold states can be explained by that phenomena. Bill Clinton also appears to focus on base reinforcing speeches since almost 60 percent of his total speeches were in states easily won in 1992 by the Democratic Party. When factoring in the Swing Democratic states from that election, Clinton appears to overwhelming give speeches in places where he was reinforcing his base support. The two administrations in Table 5-8 that appear to engage in base expanding speeches are Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. While both gave a substantial percentage of speeches in their respective party’s stronghold states, they also a large number of speeches in states that were swing states for both parties. George W. Bush especially seems to embrace a base expanding approach by giving more speeches than any other president in states that were easily carried by the opposing party. Table 5-9 reinforces Table 5-8 by examining aggregate totals on a yearly basis. It shows most presidents give speeches in base reinforcing areas. They give speeches where their party is strongest, and do so continuously throughout their presidencies. Jimmy Carter and George W. 119

PAGE 123

Bush still stand out as outliers who engage in base expanding speeches. Both gave large percentages of speeches in areas that were not locations of their strongest support. Tables 5-10 and 5-11 expand on Tables 5-8 and 5-9 by looking exclusively at election only speeches. In Table 5-10, the overall totals are shown that confirm the previous results from the other tables. Presidents do give most of their election speeches in areas favorable to their message. They largely engage in reinforcing speeches, rather than trying to expanding or foster new places of support. George W. Bush as well as Jimmy Carter is distinctive in Tables 5-10 and 5-11 for giving large percentages of speeches in swing state areas. Both sought to expand their base, and these tables reflect that. George W. Bush, in particular, spent a considerable amount of time and energy giving election speeches in places carried by the Democratic Party in 2000. Both Bush and Carter are noted for contested elections, and this expansionist approach reflects their need to reach out to areas unfavorable to them ultimately in the Electoral College. Ultimately, what does this mean? This chapter alternatively raises questions and also supports elements of the permanent campaign. Evidence throughout this chapter shows presidents do not engage in campaign oriented speeches continuously. Even when looking at cumulative speech yearly totals for the entire administration we see quantity of speeches vary by year. From this respect, the permanent campaign falters because this evidence suggests presidents do have some periods where governance supersedes campaign activity. However, the Electoral College speeches offer some support for the permanent campaign concept. Even though presidents do not focus exclusively on permanent campaigning, Tables 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, and 5-11 demonstrate presidents are aware of their bases of support. Overwhelmingly most give speeches in states favorable or at least sympathetic to them in the previous national election. 120

PAGE 124

George W. Bush stands unique as a presidency that gave more election speeches in Democratic Party strongholds in the last 2 years of his first term than in Republican Party ones. His base expansive approach supports the notion his administration sought to capture voters rather than reinforcing the areas already sympathetic. 121

PAGE 125

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY Presidential speeches are curious things. At their simplest level, they involve an elected official publicly talking. However, speeches can convey a myriad of motives, ambitions, and intentions. Sometimes, it is not how a president says something, but where he says something. Other times, location can be secondary to message. And occasionally, what you say and where you say it is imperative for the speech to have meaning. In short, location matters. Much presidential rhetoric and speech research involves content. There has been a gap in the discipline between content and location. This dissertation has sought to help bring insight into the importance of the academic study of location of presidential speeches. Location also exists as more than just a geographical point on a map. Obviously, every speech has to occur at a specific location. However, places have different meanings depending upon how to classify them. In this dissertation, the research has attempted to convey space in three primary ways: census regions, media markets, and Electoral College states. Each brings a unique nuance to the project. Presidential administrations are not two-dimensional entities, and this research does not attempt to pretend so. Presidents use and prefer locations for a variety of reasons. Sometimes an administration prefers geographical locations because of where they are in the United States. Chapter Three shows certain administrations have had clear preferences for geographical areas in the United States over others. Chapter Four adds a new wrinkle to the picture by focusing upon media markets. There exists a wide range of television media markets within the United States. Some are extremely large, others are moderately sized, and others quite small. This project shows most administrations over the past 35 years have overwhelmingly preferred to give the majority of their speeches outside Washington, DC in large media markets. 122

PAGE 126

Chapter Five introduces two new elements to the dissertation. First, the use of specific speech types (in this case, Election speeches) to see if presidential patterns shift when they are campaigning for themselves or others. Next, it explores the usage of the Electoral College as a way to examine presidential speeches. It shows that presidents primarily have always given the bulk of their campaign speeches in areas where they have the strongest levels of support. Two other ideas this dissertation has sought to explore are the notion of the permanent campaign and the nature of going public. Permanent campaigning is the state of the president spending the majority of his time giving speeches with the end result of buffering his electoral support. This continuous campaigning does not have to manifest itself simply as just election-oriented speeches. On the contrary, it suggests the very activity of being president means the president is engaged in a perpetual state of election maintenance. This project asserts if that were true, presidents would maintain the same level of speech making all throughout their first four years in office. Speeches given in the first year would carry as much weight as speeches during the third year. Consequently, presidents should sustain a similar speech load every year in office. Chapter Two points out this premise is simply not the case. Presidential speechmaking dramatically peaks in years two and four. Years one and three show markedly fewer speeches during those years. Presidents giving more election speeches during congressional or presidential election years cannot simply explain these changes. The dearth of any sustained election speeches during years one and three coupled with a sharp decline of speechmaking outside of Washington, DC those years strongly suggests presidential speechmaking follows a cyclic pattern. Samuel Kernell originally put the concept of ‘going public’ forth in a book by the same name. However, the idea has transcended Kernell’s work and become a stable of the lingo for 123

PAGE 127

practically every academic studying American politics. ‘Going public’ in its most basic meaning suggests presidents go over the heads of Congress and make direct appeals to the public for support. Kernell’s original work always situated this idea in the realm of the national public. Presidents would make national level appeals (often via television or radio) to put forth their policies to the public. If the public found them appealing, they would, in essence, force Congress to back the president or risk losing their own public approval and perhaps a future election. This research has attempted to be careful not to refute Kernell unilaterally. Rather, it has attempted (particularly) in Chapters 4 and 5 to show ‘going public’ has indeed been a national strategy many presidents embrace when giving speeches. The sizable numbers of speeches many presidents have given in the largest media markets shows they have often sought the biggest audiences when attempting to pressure the public. Nevertheless, this dissertation also suggests the nature of ‘going public’ has radically shifted recently. This idea also ties in with findings evident Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 of varying degrees. In essence, the George W. Bush presidency has been a remarkably different administration in its first term than any other in the last 35 years. Speechmaking from size of market to location has been markedly distinctive when compared with other administrations, both Democratic and Republican. For ‘going public,’ it means George W. Bush focuses far more on smaller media markets and swing states. It is not simply enough to write off this particular Bush administration as anomalous. In terms of comparison, this dissertation has also attempted to demonstration the first term of Richard Nixon was incongruous in the broad picture of the American presidency. Nixon gave fewer speeches every year he was in office. This dissertation has presented a picture of the Nixon administration as one in a mode of contraction. It visibly drew away from the public during its first term, both in terms of speech volume and location. Future administrations have shown this was an 124

PAGE 128

exceptional presidency more notably for what it did not do in terms of speechmaking. The George W. Bush administration does not follow a model that appears to revert to Nixon. While both striking in distinctive patterns, George W. Bush’s first term in office maintains a high volume of speeches while exhibiting highly amplified trends present in others after Nixon. It may be more accurate to suggest this Bush functions as a punctuated change in the nature of speechmaking for the American president. Trends across Administrations The Numbers of Speeches Presidential speechmaking is not a static endeavor. Each administration has its own unique distinctive styles, yet there are elements of uniformity across time. As Neustadt established, the persuasion power of presidents is of paramount importance (cite). They can use all sorts of tools at their disposal to accomplish their goals, ranging from appointments to offices to informal or formal networking among friends, allies, or even enemies. However, throughout the entire course of our nation’s history, one of the most powerful tools our presidents have wielded is the spoken word. Our acknowledged reverence for the office, both as a political and ceremonial position, makes the chief executive extremely powerful. The sheer mention of support or distain for a policy can have tremendous repercussions upon support for it. Likewise, the endorsement of a candidate for elected office can also have impact upon the success of a campaign. At the same time, it is often not so much what a president says, but also where he says it. The public likes to feel connected to its officeholders. When the president goes to a specific location in the United States, he is actively acknowledging the existence of that constituency. By using that location to discuss an issue, the president is employing a very localized version of ‘going public.’ The direct appeal is not aimed at as many citizens as possible. Instead, the president seeks to forge a relationship with this smaller set of the voting 125

PAGE 129

public and make them feel special and unique. This approach has been particularly evident in the George W. Bush administration. Chapter 4 shows Bush gave fewer speeches in the largest media markets and more in the smaller ones than previous presidents. Instead of relying upon televised national appeals, George W. Bush often gave similar versions of the same speech often tweaked for the immediate audience. By focusing on smaller markets, yet essentially delivering the same speeches over and over, Bush sought to employ a ‘going public’ strategy, but in a more intimate and strategically planned fashion than detailed by Kernell. Speech volume has steadily increased over the last 35 years as well. From Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, each first term administration gave more speeches than their predecessor. Though George W. Bush spoke less than Bill Clinton, he did give more public speeches than any other previous first term administration in this study. This decline could simply be attributed to the fact Bill Clinton was a very talkative president. Considering Clinton gave more publicly recorded speeches than any prior president, his administration may simply loquacious anomaly. Nonetheless, the general trend in public presidential speeches has been growth. The volume of speeches exploded beginning with the Gerald Ford presidency. This escalation beginning with Ford seems natural given the conditions under which he assumed the presidency. As the only completely unelected chief executive in American history, Ford faced a tremendous challenge in winning over the public. Ford was appointed and confirmed to the Vice Presidency following the resignation Spiro Agnew. Agnew resigned and pled no contest to tax evasion on the same day in October 1973. With the backdrop of the growing Watergate scandal, Ford became a Vice President within an increasingly unpopular administration. Ultimately, the resignation of Richard Nixon in August 1974 propelled Ford into role of President of the United States. 126

PAGE 130

The 1976 elections were far more complicated than most. The American people were simultaneously voting on a referendum of Nixon’s appointed replacement and the direction of government in the wake the huge Watergate scandal. Consequently, Gerald Ford needed to sell himself to the public. During 1976, Ford gave 702 individual public addresses. The number of speeches given in this individual year is higher than any other solitary year in this study before or afterwards. While speech volumes were steadily increasing over time (most evident on Table 2-2), this dramatic expansion in speeches can only possibly be compared to Truman in 1948. While every other year during Truman’s first term had less than 100 speeches, he gave 386 during his presidential election year. Both Truman and Ford were attempting to sway a public into accepting they were a suitable replacement and affirming it through an election. The difference between the two involves the administrations following them. After Truman, the Eisenhower administration did not give noticeably more speeches per year in comparison to Truman. As suggested in Chapter 1, Eisenhower’s health likely played a role in the number of speeches he gave throughout his presidency. For example, in September 1955, Eisenhower suffered a heart attack. From August 24 to the end of 1955 Dwight Eisenhower gave 8 public verbal events in total. On October 14, 2004, George W. Bush gave 8 different interviews on the same day. Simply put, we now expect presidents to speak more, and we would not accept the same long swaths of silence during the Eisenhower era. As Table 2-2 suggests, the general increase of speeches begins to occur in the Kennedy administration and carry through Johnson’s. Nixon also starts off his presidency with similar levels of public speeches, but these numbers steadily erode over his first term in office. Though 1976 is an unusual year for speechmaking, the Ford administration is notable for establishing a 127

PAGE 131

pattern of increased speechmaking (particularly in presidential election years) that carries through 2004. If the number of presidential speeches is on the rise, are there patterns that can be distinguished? This dissertation set out to show within yearly counts of speeches, census regions, media markets, and the Electoral College certain patterns can be ascertained. Though they are not all uniform, certain trends are quite evident. George W. Bush, from various perspectives, has forged a distinctive presidency in terms of speechmaking. Yearly Patterns Chapter 2 sought to show that presidential speeches follow regular cycles of waxing and waning. While the overall volume of speeches has dramatically increased, many of those speeches occur in Washington, DC. It is important not to discount these particular speeches. Presidents give the majority of their administration’s speeches there largely because it is the seat of government as well as the location of the president’s primary residence and is saturated with national news media.. It is undisputed that recent presidents give more speeches than previous ones. However, the nature of public discourse has also changed. The national media exists as a multitude of mediums, all competing for a new or fresh angle to draw an audience. Newspapers, television, radio and the Internet all have stations, companies, and outlets seeking something unique. As a result, the managing the presidency as well as access to the chief executive has become its own business with rules and regulations. Presidents no longer simply give weekly press conferences (like Eisenhower and Kennedy) or large named speeches (like Lyndon Johnson) as their primary way to interact with the American public. The vast bulk of these increased public interactions are in their own way sound bites. Through meting out short but more frequent verbal communication, the president speaks more, but often says less pertinent things than in administrations before the vast growth of media (note self: in the 1970s?) outlets. 128

PAGE 132

The presidency has evolved into the most remarkable public office in the United States. As an institution, it wields a huge amount of power through the bureaucracy. The president is also simultaneously a celebrity creation striving for a resonating connection with the country to maintain popularity and support. This bond between the people and chief executive is welded together by the illusion of frequent communication about issues and topics important to the public. This goal is accomplished through the use of short, often ceremonial, concise speeches covering a variety of topics. Most of these speeches often originate either at the White House or in the Washington, DC area during most years, though presidents more frequently tend to ‘take the act on the road,’ to borrow a theater phrase, during election years. As the presidents use brief minor speeches more often, they do give more speeches. On average, every president since Reagan has minimally given one speech every day they were in office during their first term. Chapter 2 also sets out to show there are patterns within this voluminous amount of speeches. Figure 2-1 graphically displays the yearly speech counts for every administration from 1945 onwards. It illustrates the clear increase in the Ford administration, as well as the notion that speechmaking is generally on the increase. This project suggests though the vast increase of Washington, DC speechmaking tends to mask regular cycles of speechmaking that are prevalent across multiple administrations. Figure 2-2 lacks the Washington, DC speeches, and clear repetitive patterns are immediately obvious after the Ford administration. Presidential speechmaking peaks in years 2 and 4 while it declines in years 1 and 3. These trends suggest presidents do indeed spend certain periods in their presidencies campaigning and other times focusing more on governing. If permanent, or continuous, campaigning truly occurred, it would be logical to conclude the president would spend as much time on speeches outside of Washington, DC during non-election (congressional and presidential) years as he did during 129

PAGE 133

them. While Chapter 5 focuses upon patterns with only election oriented speeches, Chapter 2 takes a much broader focus. Certainly, presidents only give stump speeches for candidates during the months leading up to a specific election. It would not make sense to give a speech encouraging people to reelect him at the polls 24 months before that particular election. However, permanent campaign implies the president is often engaging in such activities merely by going to a locale to speak. By traveling throughout the United States and giving speeches, the president is raising his public profile, and thus using his office as a way to help garner support. Therefore, annual counts for domestic speechmaking in a permanent campaigning model should appear flat without wide variations from year to year. Figure 2-2 shows evidently, this assumption does not hold true. Most presidents give strikingly fewer speeches outside DC during years 1 and 3. This suggests presidents spend more time governing these years, and less time campaigning. When November elections for Congress and the presidency fall in that calendar year, presidents give significantly more speeches outside of Washington, DC. The conclusion from these figures strongly suggests that campaigning follows cycles and presidents do not spend their entire first term absorbed in the process. Figure 2-1 with the full speech counts also helps support this concept if you ignore the presidencies of Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. These administrations saw speechmaking increase every year they were in office. For the latter two, the majority of those speeches were in Washington, DC. For every other administration on Figure 2-1, year 3 shows either no increase, or a sharp decrease of speeches compared to the previous year. Thus, most presidents since 1945 have given fewer speeches during their third year in office. The sharpest declines also appear to be in the recent presidencies of Clinton and George W. Bush. Hence, for the most part, with or without 130

PAGE 134

Washington, DC speeches, presidents give fewer speeches in their third year in office creating a cycle to speechmaking for the chief executive. Census Regions The goal of Chapter 3 was to look at presidential speeches through the lens of a common categorical system to see if other sorts of patterns appear. The use of United States Census regions is a widespread method of organizing information when we look at the country. As discussed in Chapter 3, other techniques and approaches have been suggested over time. Many of these typically have long-term issues with their reliability because of the mobility of the American population. On average, Americans move 10.5 times during their lifetime (Long, 1988). These internal migrations coupled with immigration result in a highly fluctuating population. According to U.S. Census, 33.1million people living in America were born elsewhere, or 11.5 percent of the total population. So, given the issues present in other geographical grouping systems, the U.S. Census’s regions remain one of the most common techniques looking at the country. Chapter 3 shows that generally speaking, most presidents give the bulk of their speeches outside of Washington, DC in either the South or the Midwest. Surprisingly, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both gave more speeches in the West than the Midwest. As Table 3-3 reveals, the Democratic presidents (Carter and Clinton) gave more speeches in the Northeast than their Republican counterparts. In all likelihood, these result from presidents preferring to go to their base of support. Democrats historically have been more successful in the Northeast states in the latter half of the 20 th century. The region all the presidents gave the most speeches in according to Table 3-3 is the South. With the population shift to the Sunbelt following World War II, it has made considerable gains politically. Since 1988, the Southern Sunbelt states have held more Electoral College votes than the ones in the Northern Frostbelt (Judd and Swanstrom 2005, 214). The growing importance of 131

PAGE 135

the South has resulted in presidents spending more time there cultivating support. There exists increasing evidence (Judis and Teixeira 2002) the Sunbelt is not uniformly Republican. The growth of minority populations coupled with large numbers of educated professionals has resulted in constituents for both parties. Table 3-3 shows presidents do go into the South more often than any other census region. The Midwest also appears to receive a lot of attention as well. However, when you examine Table 3-4, it becomes immediately evident that with the exception of Nixon and Clinton, other presidents gave the majority of these speeches in their own reelection year. It leads to assumptions that while the states in this Midwest region lean Republican, presidents primarily go there when campaigning. The census serves as a valuable tool to look at presidential speeches. In many ways, it confirms some things we often assume about what presidents do. They prefer areas of the country favorable towards them as well as locations that may give them the greatest electoral advantage. Furthermore, these census results also point to cycles in speechmaking. For most administrations, census region speeches peak during congressional and presidential election years. Table 3-2 also presents some findings about Presidential Residences that is quite intriguing. This project separately coded the location of an alternative presidential residence such as Camp David, Maryland or Crawford, Texas in the case of George W. Bush. These are locations that function as the president’s home away from the White House. It is clear that some presidents use secondary locations far more than others as a place of business. When presidents give many public speeches at these locations, it suggests they consider them alternative, or in the case of Johnson and George W. Bush, Western White Houses. These results are interesting because in the case of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, they gave a considerable number of 132

PAGE 136

speeches there during their first terms. While this project did not focus upon these findings, they do raise questions worthy of further research. Specifically, how presidents use alternate residences to conduct the business of the office. Media Markets Chapter 4 introduces the use of media markets as a way to categorize presidential speeches. Every time a president publicly speaks in the United States, it is to an audience. Most of the United States is part of a Designated Market Area, or DMA. These DMAs are numbered according to the number of television households included in them. This project uses media markets in a unique and innovative way by collating the speeches by the ranking of each location. Media markets free speeches from the geographical boundaries placed upon them by census regions. Modern presidents have ease of transportation with dedicated planes and cars at their ready disposal. Geographical space does not constrain them in the same way it did a president a century ago. In this sense, regionalism largely falls away in favor of accessibility and penetration. In other words, how easily can the president enter and leave a locale and how large is the audience there? Through Chapter 4, this research develops the idea that presidents are acutely aware of the size and characteristics of the audience when they give speeches outside of Washington, DC. In addition, an overwhelming majority of speeches are always given in the largest markets within the United States. Though presidents may prefer certain geographical areas to others, the media markets demonstrate they frequently go to the largest markets in any census region. This chapter raises some interesting questions and also presents some thought provoking results. As a general rule, speeches in the largest media markets have increased during every first term administration since Richard Nixon. Also, the smallest media markets have seen a decrease in the number of speeches in them during the same period. These results are quite 133

PAGE 137

logical. The population in the last 35 years as increased, and the majority of those people live in the proximity to larger cities. The smaller DMAs have shrunk in size as the larger metropolitan areas have grown. These trends were somewhat regular until the presidency of George W. Bush. George W. Bush gave a smaller percentage of speeches in the largest media markets of the United States than any other president in this study. He also gave the largest percentage of speeches in markets ranked from 26 to 75. In addition, while he did not give the highest percentage of speeches in the smallest media markets of the United States, he did give more speeches than any other presidents aside from Nixon and Ford. These findings within the George W. Bush administration are striking and quite unusual. What exactly is going on that causes this president to dramatically shift the course of presidential speechmaking? This project posits the very nature of ‘going public’ has altered into a more local and targeted model. George W. Bush, outside of Washington, DC, frequently gives almost identical speeches to difference audiences. By skirting around the largest media markets, these speeches can appear fresh to the people who listen to them. The dramatic differences between George W. Bush and every other president since Nixon in this regard cannot simply be written off as a mere anomaly. This Bush administration appears acutely aware of the nature the specific audiences of appealing media markets and utilizes them to their maximum advantage. Also, it is not enough to simply dismiss these findings by arguing Republicans prefer rural areas. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush all gave more speeches in the largest markets and most had fewer speeches in the smaller ones. These findings suggest a fundamental trend shift in presidential speechmaking during the George W. Bush presidency. This project puts forward the notion he ‘goes public’ but in a very different manner than the previous administrations in this 134

PAGE 138

study. George W. Bush aims his message towards smaller audiences to take advantage of their benefits of more favorable press coverage and less national exposure. The use of the media markets also substantiated the previous assertions of speeches appearing cyclic in nature. For almost every presidency, the largest percentages of speeches in every media market occurred during congressional and presidential election years. In this regard, George W. Bush appears very conventional. While he may have given more speeches in smaller markets, Table 4-3 reveals they are primarily concentrated in years 2 and 4. These results suggest a very strategic approach to speechmaking beyond a simple dislike for larger media markets. They hint at a very deliberate and focused appeal towards markets and specific targeted groups when elections are on the horizon. Some of the most interesting findings from Table 4-3 involved the smallest 2 media market regions during Bill Clinton’s first term in office. Unlike other presidents, Clinton gave a higher percentage of speeches in markets ranked after 50 during the last two years (years 3 and 4). Almost every other administration in year 3 saw a decline in the percentage of speechmaking. These results indicate Clinton was attempting to build support in markets following the loss of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. Again, this also implies a very strategic move, but the pattern is unlike any other administration in the study. Electoral College Chapter 5 explores the further nuance of Electoral College breakdown to see if there are patterns as to where presidents concentrate their public speeches. Traditionally, the Electoral College is broken down into ‘red’ or Republican states, and ‘blue’ Democratic Party states. Its label designation depends on whether or not that party carried the state in the presidential election that brought the sitting chief executive to power. However, this project suggests when looking at public speeches when presidents are often engaged in highly contested elections, these 135

PAGE 139

two categories may be too simple. By separating swing, or ‘purple’ states into their own category, it is possible to see if presidents concentrated speeches in these areas. In order to be considered a swing states, it had to be won or lost with less than 5 percent of the total vote for that state. This research created two different groups for the swing states. One that eventually went Republican and another that eventually went Democrat. Thus, it becomes possible to see where presidents gave most of their public speeches outside of Washington, DC via the Electoral College. Table 5-8 reveals that almost very president prefers to give the maximum number of speeches in the states their party carried when they first won office. These results hold true for very contentious elections (Clinton) and landslide victories (Reagan). The only president who appears very contrary to this pattern is George W. Bush, though Jimmy Carter spent a lot of time in the swing states eventually won by the Republicans. Bush gave a considerable percentage of speeches in Democratic states during his first term in office. Most other administrations, regardless of party, failed to give a significant percentage of speeches in the opposing party’s stronghold states. George W. Bush looks quite unique in this aspect. He gave 22.5 percent of all domestic public speeches outside of Washington, DC in states won by Democrats. The only two presidents with a higher percentage over the last 35 years were the two Democratic presidents. Similarly, with the exception of Carter and Clinton, George W. Bush gave the highest percentage of public speeches in swing states eventually won by the Democratic Party. These Electoral College results strongly suggest presidents, no matter how contentious the election, focus more upon states that compose their bases of support. Presidents seek out, and give speeches in states with more favorable audiences. But, George W. Bush again appears to be a vivid departure from well-established patterns within public speechmaking. By concentrating 136

PAGE 140

on the swing states, Bush appears, at least from this perspective, to reach out to a variety of constituencies. By not focusing only on states solidly in the Republican camp, it could be argued the George W. Bush administration looks to either build bridges or simply create recruits to their views. Election Only Speeches All the previous findings have looked at domestic presidential speeches in total. Much of this dissertation has focused upon drawing across the notion that cycles in speechmaking exist from a variety of perspectives. While presidents speak throughout the country on a regular basis, what kinds of speeches are they giving? Because presidents can speak on a wide range of topics, they may actually give election speeches on the regular basis, but not other types. In order to better explore this question, all the first term public speeches for the Presidents Nixon to George W. Bush where sorted based on the type of speech they gave at each event. The ‘election’ or ‘election-oriented’ speeches were culled from the dataset in order to create a new group that solely contained campaign speeches. Every time the president gave speech for fundraising or to help solicit the vote for a member of his party or himself, it was included into this set. Then, the previous results (census regions, media markets, Electoral College results) were again examined but only within the context of these speeches. If presidents were giving election speeches, did it change where they were giving them? Census Regions Do presidents give more or fewer election speeches in the census regions compared to their overall totals? The answer is yes and no. In many cases, the percentage of election speeches (Table 3-3) closely aligns with the percentages of overall speeches (Table 5-2). However, some clear distinctions are apparent. In general, the Northeast region remains stable across the different administrations. Presidents seem to roughly devote as much time towards election 137

PAGE 141

oriented speeches as they do to the general pool of speeches in this region. The distinctions between overall and election speeches in the South follow much the same pattern as the North. Most presidents tend to give about the same percentage of election speeches there as they do overall speeches. Two notable exceptions stand out, Nixon and George W. Bush. When comparing Tables 3-3 and 5-2, Nixon actually gave a much higher percentage of election speeches than overall speeches. This suggests when Nixon went into the South to give speeches; he was focused more upon campaigning activities. The opposite can be said about the results involving George W. Bush. He gave a considerably lower percentage of election speeches than overall speeches. These findings suggest he went into the South more often than for just election seeking purposes. The Midwest category presents some of the most compelling findings. In every presidency, each first term administration gave a higher percentage of election speeches than they did overall speeches. This strongly implies presidents see the Midwest as a region they seek out when it is time to encourage voters during elections. In general, the West has a smaller election percentage than the percentage of overall speeches. Contrasting with the Midwest, these results suggest presidents do not go to the West simply to campaign. Do these results hold when we look at the yearly speech total comparisons (Tables 3-4 and 5-4)? As an overall pattern, every president gave a significantly higher percentage of election speeches during the year they sought reelection (year 4) than over all speeches in every category. This results strongly suggest presidents focus upon campaigning that year and dedicate considerable energies towards it. For other years in office, there is not clear cut evidence that trends across administrations. In general, many presidents did give a higher percentage of election speeches in their congressional midterm year but this was not a universal. For example, Bill Clinton gave a smaller percentage of election speeches in the South and West in 1994 than 138

PAGE 142

overall speeches. This suggests Clinton did not campaign in these regions as much as many other comparative administrations did during their midterms. While there is no definitive answer, the focused look on election speeches by census regions shows many presidents do indeed spend more time in specific regions especially during year 4. These results help support the notion that presidents’ campaign in cycles and do not engage in models of explicit permanent campaigning. Media Markets Do presidents spend more time giving speeches in certain sized media markets when they give election speeches? By comparing Table 4-1 to Table 5-5, the answer seems to be it depends on the market size. The percentages between the election and overall speeches in the largest markets of the United States do not exhibit much of a difference. However, in the smaller market areas, most presidents obviously gave a higher percentage of election than overall speeches. When looking particularly at the smallest media markets ranked after 51 and again after 76, these tables suggest that presidents spend more time in these areas when they plan to give campaign-oriented speeches. Table 5-5 also indicates that the election speech distribution for George W. Bush is distinctive from some previous administration, it is not as dramatic as in the overall speech results. He certainly gave more speeches in the smaller media markets and fewer in the largest ones than either George H. W. Bush or Bill Clinton, but when looking just at the distribution of election oriented speeches, George W. Bush’s spread of election speeches looks a lot like Ronald Reagan. When looking at the yearly distributions in Tables 4-3 and 5-7, we again see patterns of dramatically increased percentages of speechmaking for both election and overall speeches during congressional and presidential election years. Most important, the percentages of election 139

PAGE 143

speeches are significantly higher than the overall totals for almost every administration in years 2 and 4. These comparisons also help support that notion that presidents concentrate election speeches during years when they, or members of their party are seeking to win office. The most telling results involve the absolute lack of election speeches in certain market sizes during some first term administrations. Typically, a president’s third year in office coincides with some off-year gubernatorial elections. From Carter through Clinton, each administration during their third year did not give election speeches in at least one of the media market categories after the largest ones. This suggests presidents, if inclined to give election speeches in this third year, tend to focus on the larger markets. George W. Bush is again an exception to this pattern. He gave election speeches in every media market category during 2003. However, within this exception there exists some regularity. George W. Bush only gave 1 speech in the smallest media market category during that year, so even though he did give more speeches, he also concentrated on the larger markets as well. Electoral College Do presidents give more election speeches in the states they carried in the Electoral College than overall speeches? As a general trend, the answer is yes for Republicans (though again George W. Bush is the exception). When looking at Republican won states, the presidents from that party gave a higher percentage of election speeches in their base states than did either Carter or Clinton. Surprisingly, the same cannot be said of the Democratic states. Every Republican president (exception George W. Bush) gave a higher percentage of election speeches than overall speeches in these locations. In addition, the Democratic Party presidents gave a smaller percentage of election speeches than overall speeches. The fascinating findings occur when closely looking at the swing states. Every first term administration except George W. Bush gave a smaller percentage of election speeches in the 140

PAGE 144

Republican swing states than their overall speeches. These results suggest most presidents do not aggressively give election speeches when compared to their overall totals. The Democrat swing states are far more complicated. Both Carter and Clinton gave a higher percentage of election speeches there according to Table 5-10. So did George W. Bush. These findings suggest most Republican presidents do not spend time giving election speeches in the Democratic swing states. Again, this project found George W. Bush to be the exception to the general trends. Unlike other Republican presidents, he gave a smaller percentage of election speeches than the percentage for his overall totals in both Republican and Democratic Party stronghold states. He also gave higher percentages of election speeches in both swing state categories. In fact, George W. Bush gave a higher combined percentage of election speeches in the swing states than in the stronghold ones. These findings sharply contrast with other administrations. Every other administration gave a higher percentage in their combined stronghold and swing states for their party. These results compellingly suggest this Bush administration targeted the swing states during election periods. Conclusion In summary, this dissertation has attempted to show the location of public presidential speeches matter. While most scholars focus upon the content of speeches, there has been a distinctive lack of research targeting location. This project has also sought to explain that location can also be a very malleable construct. We need not always be bound by geographical constraints to determine location. Census regions are useful for showing some preferences, but media markets also are extremely useful. Political science has not used media markets to their full advantage in most research. As Americans have increasingly become interconnected through electronic communication, where we receive our information has also grown in 141

PAGE 145

importance. Presidents often want the largest return for their investment, so speeches in the largest media markets makes perfect logical sense. Contrary to most of the other first term presidencies in this research, George W. Bush has stood out as unique. His presidency seems acutely aware of the nuances of census regions, swing states, and media markets. They appear to have especially targeted smaller media markets and swing states to help improve their popular support. These findings in turn lead us to two of the established theories this dissertation has sought to expand upon: permanent campaigning and going public. Permanent campaigning, from the perspective of this project, does not appear to hold true. Evidence from a variety of perspectives ranging from census regions to media markets to just election oriented speeches repetitively suggests that campaigning is a cyclical process during first term administrations. Presidents simply do not engage in campaigning as a routine activity, year in and year out. Speechmaking (in total and also just election) waxes and wanes with electoral cycles within the United States. Finally, that leads us to the idea of presidents going public. This project looks at how presidents seek to influence the people. Throughout most of the last 35 years, evidence throughout this dissertation established presidents prefer larger media markets and states their party unquestionably carried in the Electoral College. However, this project finds George W. Bush has broken with previous established going public patterns. He gives more speeches in smaller markets in the United States and also focuses more upon swing states. In short, George W. Bush targets populations with the specific goal of influence, not partisan reinforcement. Bush wants to extend and grow bases of support, not just sustain the ones already in place. 142

PAGE 146

REFERENCES Albarran, Alan. 2002. Media Economics. Understanding Markets, Industries and Concepts. Ames: Iowa State Press. Allen, Craig. 1993. Eisenhower And The Mass Media: Peace, Prosperity, And Prime Time TV. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Althaus, Scott L., Peter F. Nardulli, and Daron R. Shaw. 2002. “Candidate Appearances in Presidential Elections, 1972-2000.” Political Communication. 19:49-72. Bartels, Larry M. 1986. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American Journal of Political Science. 44:35-50. Baum, Matthew and Samuel Kernell. 1999. “Has Cable Ended the Golden Age of Presidential Television?” American Political Science Review. 93(1):99-114. Benchley, Peter. 1969. “Rose Garden Rubbish and Other Glorious Compositions.” Life. May 23. Blumenthal, Sidney. 1982. The Permanent Campaign. New York: Simon and Schuster. Brace, Paul and Barbara Hinkley. 1993. “Presidential Activities from Truman through Reagan.” Journal of Politics. 55(2):382-398. Broder, David S. 1971. The Party’s Over: The Failure of Politics in America. New York: Harper & Row. Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: Norton. Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 1990. Deeds Done in Words: Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres of Governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ceaser, James, Glen E. Thurow, Jeffrey Tulis, and Joseph M. Bessette. 1981. “The Rise of the Rhetorical Presidency.” Presidential Studies Quarterly. 9(2):158-171. Center for Media and Public Affairs. 2000. Available at (http://www.cmpa.com/). Last accessed January 30, 2007. Cohen, Bernard. 1963. The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton. Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1995. “Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda.” American Journal of Political Science. 39(1):87-107. Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1999. Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 143

PAGE 147

Converse, Phillip E. 1964. “The Nature and Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent. Ed. David E. Apter. New York: Free Press. Edwards, George C. III. 1983. The Public Presidency: The Pursuit of Popular Support. New York: St. Martin’s. Edwards, George C. III. 2003. On Deaf Ears : The Limits Of The Bully Pulpit. New Haven: Yale University Press. Elazar, Daniel J. 1972. American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Fiorina, Morris P. 1983. “The Presidency and the Contemporary Electoral System” in Michael Nelson, ed. The Presidency and the Political System, third edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Fiorina, Morris P. 2002. “Parties and Partisanship: A 40 Year Retrospective.” Political Behavior. 24(2):93-115. Fiorina, Morris P., Paul E. Peterson, D. Stephen Voss, Bertram Johnson. 2007. America’s New Democracy. 3 rd edition. New York: Pearson Longman. Foote, Joe S. 1990. Television Access and Political Power: The Networks, the Presidency, and the Loyal Opposition. New York: Praeger. Garreau, Joel. 1982. The Nine Nations of North America. New York: Avon. Gelderman, Carol. 1997. All the Presidents’ Words: The Bully Pulpit and the Creation of the Virtual Presidency. New York: Walker and Company, 1997. Gertner, Jon. 2004.“The Very Personal Is Political.” New York Times Magazine. February 15. Gould, Lewis L. 2003. The Modern American Presidency. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Greenberg, Edward and Benjamin Page. 2003. The Struggle for Democracy. 6 th edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Grombeck, Bruce E. 1996. “The Presidency in the Age of Secondary Orality” in Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency. ed. Martin J. Medhurst. College Station: Texas A & M University Press. Grombeck, Bruce E. and Arthur H. Miller. 1994. Presidential Campaigns and American Self Images. ed. Arthur H. Miller and Bruce E. Grombeck. Boulder: Westview Press. Hallin, Daniel C. 1992. “Sound Bite News: Television Coverage of Elections.” Journal of Communications . 42(2):5-24. 144

PAGE 148

Hart, Roderick P. 1999. Seducing America: How Television Charms the Modern Voter. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hart, Roderick P. 2002. “Why Do They Talk That Way? A Research Agenda for the Presidency.” Presidential Studies Quarterly. 32(4):693-709. Heclo, Hugh. 2000. “Campaigning and Governing: A Conspectus.” in The Permanent Campaign and Its Future. eds. Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann. Washington: AEI Press. Heith, Diane J. 2004. Polling to Govern. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hinkley, Barbara. 1990. The Symbolic Presidency. New York: Routledge. Iyengar, Shanto. 1992. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television News Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Judd, Dennis R. and Todd Swanstrom. 2006. City Politics: The Political Economy of Urban America. 5 th edition. New York: Longman. Judis, John B. and Ruy Texixeria. 2002. The Emerging Democratic Majority. New York: Scribner. Kaid, L. L. and Joe S. Foote. 1985. “How network television coverage of the President and Congress Compare.” Journalism Quarterly. 62:59-65. Kernell, Samuel. 1997. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. 3 rd edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Key Jr., V. O. 1949. Southern Politics. New York: Knopf. Key Jr., V. O. 1955. “A Theory of Critical Elections.” Journal of Politics. 17: 2-18. Kuhn, David Paul. 2004. “Vacation Politics.” March 18. Available at (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/18/politics/main607234.shtml). Last accessed: January 23, 2007. Lang, Kurt and Gladys Engel Lang. 2002. Television and Politics. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Layman, Geoffrey. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in the American Political Party System. New York: Columbia. Lee, Ronald. 1994. “Images of Civic Virtue in the New Political Rhetoric.” in Presidential Campaigns and American Self Images. eds. Arthur H. Miller and Bruce E. Gronbeck. Boulder: Westview Press. 145

PAGE 149

Leege, David C., Kenneth D. Wald, Brian S. Krueger, Paul D. Mueller. 2002. The Politics of Cultural Differences. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lieske, Joel. 1993. “Regional Subcultures of the United States.” The Journal of Politics. 55(4):888-913. Lim, Elvin. 2002. “Five Trends in Presidential Rhetoric: An Analysis of Rhetoric from George Washington to Bill Clinton.” Presidential Studies Quarterly. 32(2):328-366. Livingston, C. Don. 1986. “Presidential Rhetoric: Definition of a Field of Study.” Presidential Studies Quarterly. 16(1):22-30. Long, Larry. 1988. Migration and Residential Mobility in the U.S. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lowi, Theodore. 1985. The Personal President: Power Invested, Promise Unfulfilled. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Luttbeg, Norman. 1971. “Classifying the American States: An Empirical Attempt to Identify Internal Variations. Midwest Journal of Political Science. 15:4, 703-721. MacKuen, Michael B. 1983. “Political Drama, Economic Conditions, and the Dynamics of Presidential Popularity.” American Journal of Political Science. 27:165-192. McCarty, Nolan M., Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics. Washington DC: AEI Press. Media Life Magazine. 2006. “Another Night of ‘Idol’ gives Fox Tuesday Boost.” September 15 Available at (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2004/jan04/jan19/4_thurs/ news7thursday.html). Last accessed January 25, 2007. Miller, Warren E. 1991. “Party Identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to the Basics.” American Political Science Review. 85:557-568. Miroff, Bruce. 2003. “The Presidential Spectacle” in Michael Nelson, ed. The Presidency and the Political System. 7 th edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Mondak, Jeffrey J. 1993. “Source Cues and Policy Approval: The Cognitive Dynamics of Public Support for the Reagan Agenda.” American Journal of Political Science. 27:186-212. National Atlas. 2007. “Congressional Apportionment.” Available at (http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/boundaries/a_conApport.html#four). Last accessed March 7, 2007. Neustadt, Richard E. 1960. Presidential Power, the Politics of Leadership. New York: Wiley. 146

PAGE 150

Niemi, Richard G. and Herbert F. Weisberg. 2001. Controversies in Voting Behavior. 4 th edition. Washington: CQ Press. Nixon, Richard M. 1978. R.N.: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. New York: Grossett and Dunlap. Ostrom Jr., Charles W. and Dennis M. Simon. 1985. “Promise and Performance: A Dynamic Model of Presidential Popularity.” American Political Science Review. 79: 334-358. Ostrom Jr., Charles W. and Dennis M. Simon. 1988. “The President’s Public.” American Journal of Political Science. 32(4):1096-1119. Ostrom Jr., Charles W. and Dennis M. Simon. 1989. “The Man in the Teflon Suit: The Environmental Connection, Political Drama and Popular Support in the Reagan Presidency.” Public Opinion Quarterly. 53:353-387. Page, Benjamin I. and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Page, Benjamin I. and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1984. “Presidents as Opinion Leaders: Some New Evidence.” Policy Studies Journal. 12:649-661. Peppers, Don and Martha Rogers. 1996. The One to One Future: Building Relationships One Customer at a Time. NewYork: Doubleday. Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. 2004. “Media Consumption and Believability Study.” June 8. Available at (http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/215.pdf/). Last accessed January 15, 2007. Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. 2006. “Media Consumption and Believability Study.” July 30. Available at (http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/282.pdf ). Last accessed January 15, 2007. Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. 2004. “Pew Research Center Biennial News Consumption Survey.” June 8. Available at (http://people-press.org/). Last accessed January 15, 2007. Powell, Richard J. 1999. “Going Public Revisited: Presidential Speechmaking and the Bargaining Setting in Congress.” Congress and the Presidency. 26(2):153-170. Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. Ragsdale, Lyn. 1987. “Presidential Speechmaking and the Public Audience: Individual Presidents and Group Attitudes.” Journal of Politics. 49(3):704-736. 147

PAGE 151

Ragsdale, Lyn. 1984. “The Politics of Presidential Speechmaking, 1949-1980.” American Political Science Review. 78:971-984. Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leasers in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosen, Corey M. 1973. “A Test of Presidential Leadership of Public Opinion: The Split-ballot Technique.” Polity. 6:282-290. Sabato, Larry J. 1988. The Party’s Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America’s Future. Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman. Shaw, D. R and B. Sparrow. 1999 “From the Inner Ring Out: News Congruence, Cue-Taking, and Campaign Coverage.” Political Research Quarterly. 52:323-353. Sidey, Hugh. 1973. “Seeking Magical Vista.” Time Magazine. September 10. Skowronek, Stephen 1997. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Smith, Craig Allen and Kathy B. Smith. 1994. The White House Speaks. Westport: Praeger. Thomas, Dan B. and Larry R. Bass. 1982. “Presidential Identification and Mass-public Compliance with Official Policy: The Case of the Carter Energy Program.” Policy Studies Journal. 10:448-460. Thomas, Dan B. and Lee Sigelman. 1985. “Presidential Identification and Policy Leadership: Experimental Evidence on the Reagan Case.” In The Presidency and Public Policy Making, edited by George C. Edwards III, Steven A. Shull, Norman C. Thomas. pp. 37-49. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tilly, Charles. 1987. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Tulis, Jeffrey K. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton: Princeton University Press. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. About Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. October 1. Available at (http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html). Last Accessed January 20, 2007. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Census Regions Cartographic Boundary Files Descriptions and Metadata. August 2. Available at (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/rg_metadata.html). Last Accessed January 20, 2007. Weiss, Michael J. 2000. The Clustered World: How We Live, What We Buy, and What It All Means About Who We Are. Boston: Little, Brown. 148

PAGE 152

Welch, Reed. 2000. “Is Anybody Watching? The Audience for Televised Presidential Addresses.” Congress and the Presidency. 27: 41-58. Welch, Reed. 2003. “Presidential Success in Communicating with the Public through Televised Addresses.” Presidential Studies Quarterly. 33(2):347-365. Windt, Theodore Otto. 1986. “Presidential Rhetoric: Definition of a Field of Study.” Presidential Studies Quarterly. 16(1):102-116. Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 149

PAGE 153

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Shannon L. Bow was born in Louisville, Kentucky. She is a graduate of Louisville Male High School, the oldest high school west of the Allegheny Mountains in the United States. She earned her bachelors and masters in Political Science at the University of Louisville. Between completing her coursework for her masters and beginning the doctoral program in political science at University of Florida, she taught English at Babits Mihaly Gimnazium in Budapest, Hungary. In 2003, she married William J. O’Brien in Gainesville, Florida. She currently lives in Austin, Texas. 150