{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012036108324974924, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0160481444332999, 'mean_word_length': 5.522875816993464, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ROLE OF AFFECT AND PERFORMANCE IN COMPETENCE EVALUATIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Competence ratings are clearly a significant element of candidate evaluations and vote support. However, Political Science studies have not paid significant attention to the components of competence evaluations. This analysis attempts to identify the type of cues the public relies on to form competence judgments of candidates. The premise under examination is that candidate competence assessments are based on similar determinants for all candidates. Analysis of the competence profiles of Reagan and Clinton from the 1984 and 1996 NES Surveys does not support this hypothesis. Among sophisticates, the competence evaluations of Clinton in 1996 were determined by evaluations of performance on major issues. On the other hand, the competence evaluations of sophisticates for Reagan in the 1984 election were little related to the candidate’s abilities, but were driven mainly by feelings toward the candidate.