The standard of debate we should expect....

... at the next election is negative. While there is an election due, though not that really you would notice as yet, it seems the parties are testing out a range of things that undermine their opponent far more than they promote themselves. Perhaps that is a little unfair, it is definitely Labour's tactic, and they are relying very much on things going viral and buzzing around the Internet (the example left is a case in point that I have been sent a number of links to). Equally the wonderful 'Tory Logo' tool.

But the Conservatives have been doing very similar things, from the demand for an election, the say sorry campaign to this one that has also on a number of blogs in the last couple of days (torybear for example). A recycling of a campaign back in 1979 and only a matter of time before it reappeared - especially pertinent given the news of unemployment rises yesterday. But there is a broader point to all of this. If it is simply going to be a tit for tat battle of attacks how can the parties expect the public to engage with the campaign. There is already evidence that voting is not for 'the best candidate' (Obama perhaps being the exception) but the 'least worst'; this simply promotes that.

Attacks only work if they stick and are believable, so we await what the mass of people decide on these messages. However blunt attack ads also are claimed to have a negative effect on public trust (they are all c**p), efficacy (voting is pointless because they are all c**p) and interest (they are not saying anything of relevance) and so voter turnout. The positives are they are memorable and, if amusing, repeated; but they are only attractive if they reinforce the beliefs of the reader - hence they go around the partisan blogs but seldom make the mainstream perhaps and are not as effective when viewed by the floating, non-partisan voter.

Perception Management

I was talking to my students today about the focus on image and marginalisation of substantial policy from much of the political communication that is made mainstream. In other words the stuff that is promoted to us is more about building a perception of the man rather than telling us what the man will do when elected. The following video is a prime example.

The link is sent around by email saying that his opponents are asking 'who is Barack Obama'. His campaign team's response is to: "share a video of personal moments from behind the scenes at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, so you can see Barack and Michelle as they are -- decent, warm, and kind people with a loving family". It is a fly on the wall style video, well done yet appearing to capture private moments - a cynic would wonder how much is staged and whether anyone can act normally when a camera is pointed at them. But the broader picture is also whether this is asking the US voter to vote Obama simply because he is a nice guy, a family guy, a guy 'like you' or just to get them interested and involved to collect further information. While the latter may be an aspiration is the former more likely in reality and if so does this have a negative impact on how informed voters actually are?

Taking the biscuit

Reading Hillary Clinton's twitter feed this morning I thought it was her birthday, and that she was asking voters to help her celebrate by winning for her in Oregon. Instead it was a rather crassly delivered emotional appeal and endorsement that reads as follows:

Hillary Clinton’s Springfield office had a very special Get Out the Vote celebration yesterday. Eugene native Shana Stull was the first Oregon Field Organizer hired by the Oregon for Hillary campaign. Shana is the proud mom of two daughters, Amelie and Doreen, ages three and one. In honor of Amelie’s third birthday yesterday, twenty Eugene volunteers made 518 phone calls in one hour to help Get Out the Vote for Hillary. Shana couldn’t think of a better birthday present for her daughter than to help elect Hillary as our next President. “For my daughters, I’m doing everything I can to elect Hillary. I know that she will create a brighter future for our children,”
Shana said... see full post

and on the endorsement goes. I just cannot for the life of me seeing why this will sway the floating voter. Maybe it is not necessary to make a case to vote for Clinton anymore given how long the campaign has been running but does the unqualified endorsement of a campaign activist carry any weight?

The Divide in US Democrat caucuses

Obama so far has a majority among black and younger voters also he is popular with regular churchgoers. Clinton is the candidate for the older black community, the retired population and female voters. Also, and very interestingly, Clinton is the candidate for those with knowledge about the issues and the economy; in contrast Obama is more likely to attract the disillusioned and apathetic who seek change but find it harder to articulate their desires. Perhaps that is why his campaign relies on rhetorical cues and he avoids issues and policy; or is it that only those who do not really think carefully about policy and issues will follow his style of campaigning.

I think a serious problem he will face is his lack of experience and lack of substance; while he can deliver great oratory can he be trusted to deliver great government? That’s the decision US Democrats face and perhaps the segmentation that is emerging reflects how the campaign styles are playing out with voters. For more data and details see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7211535.stm

That perception thing

The book that all sensible political strategists are reading [Drew Westen's The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation] concludes that "people vote for the candidate who elicits the right feelings, not the candidate who presents the best arguments." And in an assessment of US politics argues that there is a fundamental problem with the emotional appeals created by the candidates, and in particular the Democrat Party. The problem is the use of negativity and appeals to fear and prejudice. Western argues political communication "can just as easily be appeals to their hopes and dreams, their sense of shared fate or purpose, their better angels, or their sense that there might be someone who genuinely cares about their welfare and has what it takes to restore it." This, Western argues, in a Guardian review of his book, is why Bush beat Gore, Bush appealed to the little man while Gore had the big picture and the statistics.

Hard to say exactly how accurate this picture is, but it is hard to say it is wrong in anyway; but as the strategists within Westminster and Whitehall devour Weston's argument will this herald in an abandonment of the negative ad and fear appeal or will the cheap shot remain the silver bullet of political advertising?