hey set the agenda, almost two out of 10 said that control over the agenda was competitive, and less than 5 percent thought that an opponent set it.One-quarter of all candidates thought that a party or outside advocacy group set the agenda. More minor party players (one-third) held this view than major party players (one-fifth).Candidates as SkepticsMost candidates view the American electorate's knowledge of major policy issues with skepticism: over two-thirds say voters are either very poorly or somewhat poorly informed. Third party and Independent candidates are almost twice as likely to consider voters to be very poorly informed and three times less likely to consider voters very well informed or somewhat informed.This skepticism may influence what candidates view as appropriate behavior in elections. Seven in 10 of all federal and state candidates polled said it is appropriate to publicly raise an opponent's failure to pay child support or alimony as a campaign issue, 66 percent believed it was appropriate to discuss an opponent's failure to pay back taxes and 60 percent maintained it was OK to raise a documented allegation of sexual harassment or a DWI (drunken driving) conviction.Between 42 percent and 48 percent of all candidates believed it was acceptable to publicize the fact that an opponent had employed an illegal immigrant as a household worker, recently declared bankruptcy, or committed spousal abuse or infidelity. Approximately 20 percent felt it was acceptable to discuss a youthful indiscretion or a previously unpublicized homosexual relationship. Eight percent or less considered it acceptable to focus on unflattering aspects of an opponent's personal characteristics, raise an unproven allegation from a lawsuit, use negative advertising to decrease voter turnout, make an allegation against an opponent's family, or make statements that are factually untrue.Third party and Independent candidates are more likely to maintain ...
