It seems to me that popularity is a relative thing here and it reminds me of the bear joke...
Bob and Dan are camping when they see a big grizzly bear running their way. Bob stops to change into his running shoes and Dan tells him, "that is stupid because you'll never out run the bear". To which Bob replies, "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to out run you..."
With this in mind, is it easier to gain personal popularity or to make the opponent less popular? Why?
What are the most effective methods? Can one go too far?
I am most interested in the Romney vs Obama contest right now, since I am pretty sure that is going to be a knock down drag out fight.... However, other examples are encouraged...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It's much easier to make your opponent less popular. That's what negative campaigning is all about. Mitt Romney's campaign succeeded because of his use of negative campaigning.
--Hiram
Are we that fickle that negative ads can sway us so quickly? I assume we are, since they spend so much money on it.
In reality though, aren't 80+% of the voters already pre-decided when it comes to Obama vs Romney? (ie ~40% for each no matter what...)
It is just that 20% clique in the middle that they need to attract... (or poison against the other guy) Or is that swing group even smaller?
The hush-hush rule of political strategy is "go negative early and often" or "define your opponent before he can define himself." The Obama Campaign School is the graduate text on the subject.
And it is more like 30% hard-wired folks on either side, with the 40% in the middle not paying enough attention.
J. Ewing
Folks not paying attention is why negative campaigning is so effective. Plant a seed of doubt or objection early in the race (true or not, fair or not) and you can ruin an opponent's chances.
J. Ewing
I think my ~20% is much closer and here is some data to back it up. Gallup 1 in 4 Swing Voters
I mean the Pro-Life / Pro-Choice one issue voters can pretty well lock in that 40/40 split. Many of them would not vote against the candidate that supports their view if they sprouted horns.
I agree that many people are oblivious to the candidates and issues, however I don't see that as why they are "undecided/swing". I think many of the "decideds" on either side are equally oblivious and simply choose sides based on habit, party affiliation or their pet issue.
It was my suspicion that swing or independent voters are less knowledgeable than partisan voters so I did a quick search and found a link which show this is true, to a small degree.
What the Public Knows about the Political Parties
I don't think negative campaigning will hurt Obama much, as it didn't work last time. I think Romney is more vulnerable. I think he can effectively be portrayed as a flipflopping liar who has so sold out his core beliefs he can't remember what they are.
Laurie, thank you for that link, though I don't interpret it the same way you have. I think it proves that Republicans are more conscious of "branding" than Democrats. That is, we believe that party affiliation should convey to the voter a whole host of issue positions that the voter can expect of the candidate in office. It is "one piece of information" that the voter ought to be able to depend upon, and perhaps the only piece of information a lot of voters really have.
As to who is more knowledgeable on the underlying issues, I must agree with the study that says Republicans know them better than either independents or Democrats, because conservative positions require it. You can't just "feel like" government should care for the sick or poor; good intentions aren't enough.
I agree that Obama won't be hurt by negative campaigning and I don't expect Romney to do much of it because it isn't necessary. There's too much "ammunition" that is factual, and Romney has so far taken a positive approach and let the contrasts be obvious. What I DO expect is that Obama will mount the nastiest, most negative campaign in history against Romney, and it WILL hurt Obama. The only thing the guy has to run on-- he can't possibly defend his record-- is his personal likability, and the more negative he becomes the less people will like him for it, and the more people will start to notice that the negativity is all he has.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment