The New York Times headline today read, “Poll Finds Wide Obama Lead Despite McCain Attacks.” And I said to myself, “Poll finds wide Obama lead because, not despite McCain attacks.” While political attack ads are extremely effective in some campaigns, they are by no means a guarantee to improved polling numbers. And can backfire if done badly.
It got me reflecting on the psychology of politics and political campaigns.
The choice to “go negative” is usually an easy one. There’s a few decades worth of political campaigns that have given political operatives significant insight into what “works” and what doesn’t. That is, what’s effective in moving poll numbers (and therefore votes on election day), and what’s not so effective.
The problem with “going negative” is that it doesn’t always work. And I suspect that has a lot to do with the specific claims made against the other candidate and what kind of election it is.
For instance, negative campaigning tends to work really well in local and state elections when a candidate can specifically tie their opponent to enough negatives that it gets people’s attention. “Senator JimmyBob voted to kill baby deer in the local woods; why would you vote for someone like that?”
But it’s a harder proposition when your negative campaign isn’t specific and instead just makes general accusations that can neither be proved nor disproved. The Swift boat attack in 2004 against presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry was effective because it was specific. The half-hearted attacks McCain is hurling toward Obama are broad, general, and sometimes of questionable historical significance. Who hasn’t associated with people in their past that they now regret? Practically everyone. To draw some sort of connection between Obama and a past acquaintance is reaching, at best.
Especially in time of upheaval and uncertainty, I believe voters are less open to the politics of attack and negativity. They want a leader with solutions, answers and a positive vision. Not someone who is constantly seen simply attacking his candidate’s vision and ideals. It’s one thing to keep repeating the mantra, “Well, I have the experience, my friends.” It’s another to back it up with the actions of your entire campaign to illustrate how you’re going to use that experience in a positive manner.
One also can’t help but question that experience and judgment when, instead of choosing far more qualified vice-presidential candidates, one chooses someone who is inexperienced and divisive. McCain’s vice-presidential choice also hasn’t really added much to the national dialogue or (intelligent) conversation about how we’re going to get out of this economic and Iraqi quagmire. Instead, we see political rallies where Obama is personally disrespected, called a “terrorist” and a “traitor,” and where the audience is so mis-informed and ignorant, they actually believe he’s Islamic or a Muslim.
A decade ago, both my wife and I would’ve seriously considered voting for McCain, the “straight-talking” independent politician. But since those 10 years have passed, McCain has lost his way and his own vision and independence. Instead of being a “maverick,” he is a perfect example of everything wrong with old-school politics today — a visionary who simply spent too much time in his party listening to others who think they knew better than he. That’s too bad, because at one time McCain really was the person he still tells people he is.
So it wouldn’t be much of a leap to suggest that Americans are turned off not despite his negative campaigning, but because of it. He’s gone negative in a way that has done little to illuminate any real issues or concerns with Obama (other than innuendo). And he’s shown how little he understands how serious most Americans view the current economic and Iraqi situation, while he and his vice presidential candidate focus on things that happened 30+ years ago.
In September, we reviewed McCain’s and Obama’s records in relation to mental health issues and found Obama came out slightly on top. A month later and we still haven’t heard anything to change our mind. So given that record and Obama’s clear plan to end the war in Iraq (a tragedy of epic proportions, not dissimilar to Vietnam), we firmly and whole-heartedly endorse Barack Obama for President.
6 comments
It’s ironic that the advertisement banner to the right of this post. I have to hope that it is only there due to an automated, topic-related search engine.
I’ve disliked the word “maverick” ever since that Scientologist freak, the vastly over-paid actor Tom Cruise played a character by that name in “Top Gun”.
To get to that level as a flier, one could simply not be a maverick. This is a job that has more rules than the religious right. It’s the same case for any successful politician.
The real mavericks aren’t on the tickets. Not because they’re bad. In fact, it may be because they’re good. It’s time to relax the rules to independents, Green Party and others a more level field.
In the meanwhile, I’ll keep bitching about the Republicans and raving about Obama/Biden.
I don’t like either candidate. I am concerned by a recent comment by Obama. He mentioned that he wants to “distribute the wealth.” Biden said the same thing earlier in the campaign. That smacks of taking your hard earned money and redistributing it. That bothers me a lot!
Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
http://www.DrSam.tv
The good news, Sam, is that I don’t think either candidate would get their agenda through in Congress in this economic climate. It’s one thing to say, “I’m going to do this, this and this,” but the political reality is that most candidates probably get about 10% or 20% of what they intend to do actually get done. So I think either candidate’s tax plan is going to make it through Congress, but both will be watered down (e.g., less than what they ask for), because that’s the nature of Congress.
With respect, Dr. Grohol, that’s a lame reason to vote for someone: “I’m voting for a socialist, but I doubt that he’ll be able to get his socialistic, wealth-redistributionist agenda through Congress.”
But what if he does?
It’s also not true to say that Obama’s connection with Bill Ayers is about things that happened “30+ years ago.” Obama launched his political career in 1995 with Ayers’ help, and has worked closely with him on major Chicago public boards in the years since. They are close friends.
The real serious issue here is why so many of Obama’s supporters are so glibly ignoring Obama’s close connections with this unrepentant, America-hating, marxist revolutionary and his cop-killing wife. What is so great about Obama that makes you want to ignore all these serious warning signals and act as if they mean nothing?
I guarantee you that if McCain had a similar connection in his past, you would not be ignoring it.
As a psychologist, Dr. G, you ought to recognize what is happening here–it’s called “willful blindness.”
@Timothy — Ahh, I see you’re parroting the new McCain attack, suggesting his programs equate to “socialism.” A line that’s good for a good laugh, for sure, but that’s about it.
Ayers? Really?? You think that’s relevant? Well, okay, but you’d better ask all those other board members, including those Republicans, who shared the same board and worked on the same issues. “Guilt by association” is something I thought died with the Communist scare of McCarthyism in the 1950s. Apparently not, because it’s still alive and well, and still reliably trotted out by both political parties.
The reality of our economic situation is such that neither candidate’s tax plan is likely to make it through Congress as-is. And last time I looked, it was Congress who makes the laws, not the president. So candidates can promise a great deal, but you’re either naive or worse if you believe they can deliver on more than 10% of what they claim.
Frankly, we can’t afford either plan:
http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/10/19/bailout_to_swell_debt_hit_taxpayers/
But no politician can ever run on the reality of the economic situation.
When Colin Powell is endorsing Obama over McCain, that’s telling you something.
ayers was never convicted as a terrorist. please say “alleged terrorist linked to the ronald reagan administration through reagan’s supporters, the annenburgs.”
thank you for supporting obama, doctor grohol. even if you don’t like obama’s plans, having a bad plan is always better than having no plan. that’s what these corporate raiders have been doing to our government for the last 7 and a half years and mccain promises more of the same.