Waldo 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 polls are rare. They’re generally used immediately before the election, and they’re used by desperate campaigns. Spotting one is like seeing a UFO; sure, people think they see them, but they’re probably wrong. Smart people err on the side of sanity and claim only that they witnessed something unusual, and leave it at that.
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.