It never made much sense that a negative election campaign could be successful; if that was the case all anyone had to do was get the lowest hit in last and they would win an election. However it has always been argued to be successful; basically the negative message sticks provided the audience find it believable: John Kerry the flip-flop stuck after all. But perhaps voters are becoming more cynical and more sophisticated. Mitt Romney was purely negative in both Iowa and New Hampshire, trying to undermine the campaigns of Huckabee and McCain his main Republican rivals; yet he went from being a favourite to being an also ran. In Michigan, of which he claimed “I've got Michigan in my DNA. I've got it in my heart and I've got cars in my bloodstream”, he was the man who could fix the economy, the positive candidate. It worked for him in Michigan and is argued in analyses as the smarter way to campaign, particularly when competing against members of your own party. The presidential race will be negative, we know that this mobilises the core vote, but I'm guessing there needs to be a lot more comparativity (s/he did this, but I do it better), or ads promoting the strengths of a candidate.
3 comments:
Why Huckabee is dangerous...
"It's a lot easier to change the Constitution," said Huckabee, "than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."
What is really scary about this, in terms of a persuasive tactic, is that it is hard to argue with 'the word of god'. Well only to say that the only people who claim to speak the word of god are people, they read books that cite the words of God written by other people and, without concrete evidence of the existence of some divine and omnipotent superbeing, why should we beleive anyone who claims to talk to entities that we cant prove every existed.
That is the manifesto on behalf of the atheists; apologies to all who have faith who I have offended, apart from those who use 'The word of god' as a political manifesto.
Good point, as the 'word of god' can be deemed undemocratic as it is impossible to argue with....
I jest; perhaps the US requires propaganda censorship with regards to the growing pursuit of a 'Theocracy' - which must be alienated from democracy. A restriction on free speech against Republicans who continue to infringe on oppositions rights - why can't the constitution be changed so that 'God' and politics cannot be referenced synonymously? Or better yet, such talk is only allowed in the Orwellian 'free speech zones' the Bush administration push opposition voices into. Mind, I'd doubt they'd get the media coverage they want inside them! (as is their purpose!)
Post a Comment