|
|
Monday, April 03, 2006Waldo Jaquith: Push pollsWaldo has the final word on the Harris Miller psuh poll conducted last week: The survey asked about Webb's negatives - "would you be more or less likely to vote for him if you knew he worked in the Regan administration?" - but it likewise asked about Miller's negatives. My friend, a follower of politics and a one-time campaign treasurer, perceived no difference in the strength or tone of the negatives that would indicate that either Webb or Miller was being slandered. The entire call featured a battery of questions, lasting well over twenty minutes.Push polling is an extremely useful tool in determining a number of things: (1) Negatives of your candidate. (2) Negatives of the opposition. (3) Obtaining information to weed out the best candidate in a multi-candidate primary (a "threat matrix") (4) Pushing undecideds not to vote. (5) Upping the negativity of a campaign, and driving down turnout. It's a sad fact of politics that negative campaigning works. But before we go into that detail, let's discuss three different types of information: Positive Campaigning are issues that stress reasons to vote for a candidate. The only similarity between positive and the connotations of good are semantic. Positive issues are because your candidate is a veteran, has a family, goes to church, has 10 years of civil experience, etc. Negative Campaigning are issues that stress reasons to vote against a candidate. Like positive campaigns, the only similarity between negative campaigning and connotations of bad are semantic. Such examples would be anything that would give a reason for a voter not to vote for a candidate: a failed business, someone who recently moved into the district, bad votes on a voting record, inexperience, lifestyle issues, etc. Nasty Campaigning is stuff that goes below the belt. If you're wondering, yes both positive and negative campaigning can get nasty or unfair. Positive examples would be claiming credit for something one did not accomplish (passing a bill, false credentials, abusing the public trust or charity involvement). Negative examples would be unfairly attacking a candidate on something beyond their control (a "black sheep" member of the family, exaggerating the impact of a vote, misconstruing your opponent, or my personal favorite the "double negative" -- claiming to be the victim of a nasty campaign). What works? Negative campaigning works. Why? It's a byproduct of the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality. 1800 was the first true American presidential election featuring two political parties. Did the American people want to read about Adams and Jefferson - two of the brightest minds of the age? Of course not. Americans wanted to read about "monocrats" stealing their rights. Americans wanted to read about Hamilton's lurid escapades with married women. Americans wanted to read about Sally Hemmings and Jefferson's atheism. Americans wanted to read about Aaron's Burr's insatiable appetite for power. The election of 1800 was as nasty as they come, and since Americans have enjoyed a tightrope act that teeters between what politicians' tell them who they are (the positive aspects) and what their critics have to say otherwise (the negative aspects). The trick is to not let the negatives (or the positives) turn nasty. Is it healthy? I think so, to a point. Unfortunately so many people get misled on the distinction between positive and negative (reasons why vs. reasons why not) that they immediately brand all negative campaigning as nasty, while completely ignoring positive. It's far easier to cheat on a resume than it is to point out someone else's falsehood (or mental error). Unforutnately most voters don't have the time to educate themselves on the differences between positive and negative campaigning, what nasty campaigning is, and will continue to fall prey to "push polling". Campaign consultants would love nothing better than to have low, manageable turnout for every election. As much as we may gripe over it, that's precisely the way both major parties want it. With regards to the Miller push poll, the Webb campaign may cry foul, but to no avail. Not only will folks not remember the poll two weeks from now, the negatives will be there today as they will be tomorrow. The art of presenting the information to voters still remains; (1) how do you use a negative, and (2) how do you counter, if at all? Sometimes they boomerang, sometimes they don't. The tougher part is taking a false positive and pointing it out... Add to it a press that speaks in soundbites, campaigns with finite (yet massive) amounts of money, an electorate that is busy living their own lives and has little time to dwell on matters of campaign technique, and you have a fine mess on your hands. If you can figure an easy way out and end the insanity, you'd make a fortune. Best of luck.
|
|
JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General?1) John Brownlee2) Ken Cuccinelli AboutShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.ContactThe Jeffersoniad
ArchivesMarch 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Home