I watched CNN for the debate just to see the graph. It was quite interesting. When Obama spoke, he often pegged the chart. McCain only occasionally hit the top, sometimes dipping below the middle. Based on that small sample, Obama killed and McCain’s message, style, etc weren’t working on that admittedly limited sample.
Given the Republican strategists and handlers were probably watching, too, plus hearing the growing discontent over the depressing negativity he and Palin have sunk to using, why are they still doing it? The public is smart enough — at least most of it — to know and understand and reject this tactic, so why continue it since the declining polls seem to indicate it ain’t working and may even be driving people away?
Voters’ debate reaction shows resistance to negativity
A moving graph at the bottom of the CNN screen during Tuesday night’s presidential debate measured the reactions of uncommitted voters in the swing state of Ohio, and it seemed to bear out the theory that negative campaigning draws negative voter reactions.
Nearly every time one candidate threw a jab at the other, the voter reaction dipped measurably.
The dips were minor for small digs but slipped further if a candidate continued criticizing his opponent.
For instance, reactions of both men and women voters slid into negative territory when Republican Sen. John McCain said that trying to nail down Democratic Sen. Barack Obama’s tax policies is like “nailing Jell-O to the wall.”
Similarly, the reaction line took a dive when Obama discussed McCain’s votes in the Senate against alternative fuels.
Such negative reactions are typically seen in voters who are undecided, said Merle Black, professor of politics and government at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.
Uncle Dave scrawled,
“Why Are The Candidates Going Negative When Voters Hate It?”
Umm, historically it has worked. And, when dealing with politicians, there is more bad things to say about them than good things.
Pretty simple.
Let me know if I can help you understand any other simple, basic stuff about life.
I generally agree with your analysis, Uncle Dave – though I think the eedjit vote runs counter-intuitive to sentient human beings.
Best example I’ve seen – following a couple of elections around the country – is the contest between Al Franken and Norm Coleman in Minnesota.
Coleman had a comfortable double-digit lead for months until the RNC in their wisdom started sleaze ads a few weeks back. Now, they’re a single point apart – within the margin of error – and the Dems are happy as hell about it.
(just checked at electoral-vote.com and Franken has moved from 1% behind Coleman to 1% ahead)
Keep it up, Dumbos!
McBush is going negative because everything he has tried so far hasn’t worked. He knows Obama isn’t a familiar name to most Americans and he wants us to show our racism and not trust a black candidate. He is desperate. And, just like Bush when cornered, he will throw a tantrum and declare war. “That man” got the best of him.
I feel confident that McCain isn’t going nearly as negative as he’s being asked to. I think there is some reticence there on his part, due to his honor welling up and reminding him of the bouts he’s had with blind ambition in the past. As an independent voter, this appeals to me. He’s a little too far gone now to have a chance, but I’m sure that the undecideds would swing him even lower in the polls if he did what his managers wanted. Of course, mud-slinging is Palin’s job primarily, but she’s lost a little too much credibility herself lately to be effective.
I think it’s likely that we’ll get either a long interview or a book from McCain on the topic, after the election. McCain’s a good man in my opinion, and politics isn’t always friendly to good men. I’m glad he’s keeping his honor about him though, and I wish he hadn’t given in as much as he has to the republican machine. A McCain-Leiberman ticket would have likely faired better, but that’s just my opinion, and perhaps wishful thinking… the notion that he was “managed to death”.
Frankly, I have tired of this circle jerk. Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke run this country now, not anyone elected. They control if or what collage my kids may attend (529 plan), how long in life I work (cost of living) and when/where I may retire (401 plan).
I voted yesterday by mail. It does matter what either of these two (flotsam and jetsam) running for the highest office in our land do or say.
Let them go negative I do not care.
For an extreme thought-experiment on this type of public opinion monitoring, I *highly* recommend “The Interface” by Neal Stephenson and some other guy.
Sorry “other guy.” I’m a NS fan.
I’m a maverick, you #%@&*¢£$ just don’t know how effective potty mouth can really be. What part of $#¡™Ωµ†# don’t you understand?
As always the presidency goes to the guy who can curse the bluest streak. I swear. Do you think this world runs on civility and politeness? Oh, please!
The technique works quite well on the Republican Base. The reason its not working now is simply that McCain is rejected as “too liberal” by the Repuglican base. That and for multiple reasons the repuglican base has shrunk just enough so that McCain loses the base or the independents no matter what he does.
Rough justice of a sort for the repug party.
Well, all McSame has IS ***MORE OF THE SAME***, and the Voting Public is NOT IN THE MOOD FOR MORE !!! So the Desperate Repukes are trying to sell their PIG IN A POKE(WITH OR WITHOUT LIPSTICK) BY TELLING US IT IS NOT AS BAD AS “THAT ONE” !!! Won’t work though, the Voters are in the mood for “Change we can believe in”!!! And it looks like they want SO MUCH CHANGE, THEY WILL SWEEP REPUKES OUT OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS TOO !!! Looks like the “Conservative Republican Revolution” is OVER !!!
Can someone explain how CNN gets the info for the graph? Do they have cameras trained on every singe person in the audience and a guy watching their expressions as the candidates speak? Seems a little like BS to me.
#10 Personality – The audience members have a little box with a dial on it. Twist it one way and it’s a positive reaction and twist it the other direction for negative reaction. I saw them demonstrating it prior to the debate.
#10 “Can someone explain how CNN gets the info for the graph?”
They take a self selecting group of people and wire them. They have a clicker with 2 buttons (positive & negative) that the press as they feel, well, positive or neg. If they press the wrong button they get a shock.
Kind of like a Pavlovian conditioning experiment.
#4 McCain was once a good man but no longer. The negative tone of the campaign was his campaign’s doing. The negative tone that Obama’s campaign has adopted has been a response. They learned what silence gets you when attacked from what the swift-boaters did to Kerry. For instance they never brought up the Keating Five until McCain started rehashing the Ayers nonsense. What kind of a leader is McCain anyway if he can’t control the message promulgated by his own managers?
The McCain of 2000 was a generally decent guy who deserved the presidency far more than Bush. The new McCain/Palin is an embarrassment and is emblematic of why I’m still a conservative but no longer a Republican. And I’m not alone.
11, 12. Thank you!
[#11 was correct. #12 was joking. – ed.]
#14 Personality – You do know that Pati-o-Furniture is not correct. He got his info from Faux Snooze.
What surprises me most is how negative Cindy McCain has become at her campaign appearances. I’ve never before seen this level of negative attack come from the mouth of a potential First Lady, and I’ve lost the fair amount of respect I used to have for her because of her charitable activities. Maybe it’s a problem with my memory, but Mrs. McCain has crossed a line that I can’t remember ever seeing crossed before. The good news is that she seems increasingly unlikely to ever become First Lady.
While the CNN opinonometer tracking was less than fully accurate, it was interesting to see how this particular group responded. I found the differences among men and women to be very revealing. When McCain spouted the need for victory in Iraq, men were sometimes in the lower third of positive while women scored twice as high.
In general, Obama seemed to be inspirational, garnering major points when he touched things that might involve social motion like environmental issues and sacrifices.
McCain puffed and huffed about how lousy “that one” was, consistently buying no support whatsoever.
It’s always amazing to see how anger can cause a person to try to paint their adversary with their own worst qualities.
McCain seems completely incapable of inspiring people to move toward a more enlightened form of government. He seems to require that people fear life and governance and change of the status quo in order to buy into his messages.
Ummm, should I point out the obvious…
“Given ***John*** and handlers were probably watching, too, plus hearing the growing discontent over the depressing negativity ***Johns web site*** have sunk to using, why are they still doing it? The public is smart enough — at least most of it — to know and understand and reject this tactic, so why continue it since the declining polls seem to indicate it ain’t working and may even be driving people away?”
Did you really say this?
Yeah, so I guess all candidates should just be positive and never point out anything bad about their opponents? Barack Obama should never say anything about McCain wanting to be in Iraq for 100 years? That’s a negative attack after all. McCain shouldn’t point out that Obama has done nothing but work towards a higher office, and has no experience? Negative attack after all.
THEY ARE THROWING THE VOTE..
the only reason they are still showing up, is to MAKE IT LOOK, like a real vote.
We need SOMEONE ELSE to vote for, but FEW have the money(as much as the dem/repub have) to go NATIONAL…
Because McSame hasn’t a clue. The ship is sinking and there last lifeboat just sailed away.
#19, Lyin’ Mike,
There is a big difference between policy statements and bringing something up from your opponents history. McCain suggesting we could be in Iraq for 100 years is challenging his policy. Obama bringing up McCain’s gay brother, or that Cindy McCain had an abortion before she met John adds nothing to the now.
So why is McCain going negative? He is bankrupt in the idea department.
because americans are schizophrenic
+ they demand credentials, but hate smarty-pants
+ they hate negative ads, but negative ads are the only ones they respond to
+ they demand government services, but hate paying taxes
+ they demand respect for the constitution, but blame its amendments for everything.
we’re a goofy people.
off topic a bit: hey Uncle Dave:
-this just broke on UK Sky News, i think it warrants a good look. -drill it down for validity check. story has some merit…may be biased propaganda too..
i haven’t followed DU fully the past few days
so i don’t know if you’ve already reported on aspects of this.. your thoughts?
“Mass Fraud Fears In US Election”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/Mass-voter-fraud
-s
ps, of course, i’m not finding this anywhere
in US news…only foreign sources
yahoo UK reports it, but not yahoo US…
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20081009/twl-mass-fraud-fears-in-us-election-3fd0ae9.html
-s
mthrnite said, on October 9th, 2008 at 5:28 am
> I feel confident that McCain isn’t going nearly as negative as he’s
> being asked to. I think there is some reticence there on his part,
> due to his honor welling up and reminding him of the bouts he’s
> had with blind ambition in the past. As an independent voter,
> this appeals to me. He’s a little too far gone now to have a
> chance, but I’m sure that the undecideds would swing him
> even lower in the polls if he did what his managers wanted. Of
> course, mud-slinging is Palin’s job primarily, but she’s lost a
> little too much credibility herself lately to be effective.
Are your f-cking kidding me?
So, McCain supports people yelling “Kill Him” and “Terrorist” at his event and you think that’s “honorable?”
Regarding Palin — “credibility” — what the f- are you talking about? McCain’s VP pick is a f-ing moron. She’s got republicans in a tizzy over her pumps, but come on she’s a vacant tool.
#28 FckedUp – Scared are we?
#28 Fedup wrote “Example; If anyone dares mention the man’s legal middle name then he must be a ‘racist’.”
Close, but you didn’t quite hit the target. The people who insist on using Obama’s middle name aren’t necessarily racist at all. However, it’s fairly clear that they are trying to appeal to the inner racist of their audience. It’s simply another attempt to win no matter how slimy the tactic. It’s scary to think what happens when people like that attain high command posts in our military. Possibilities like Abu Ghraib as well as CIA abductions and renditions quickly come to mind.
If his middle name were Frederick, would you insist on repeating it ad infinitum?
#26 “ps, of course, i’m not finding this anywhere
in US news…only foreign sources” … “-drill it down for validity check. story has some merit”
I saw it on MSNBC this a.m. If you google there a quite a few regional US papers reporting on this.
Don’t waste your typing on Uncle Dave, he will only “investigate” something if it doesn’t reflect poorly on liberals.