negative campaigns

Over the past few weeks we have seen the McCain campaign flailing, as the economic crisis has forced its way into the political dialogue, forcing McCain and the Republicans to talk about an issue with which they have absolutely no credibility.

We've seen the outcomes expressed in a few ways. We've all seen Obama skyrocket in the polls, as voters have been more impressed and comfortable with his approach to the economy -- perhaps because he understands it. Here is a graph from Open Left yesterday of both candidates' support in an average of four tracking polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, Hotline, R2Kos):

We've also seen the revival of the dream of capturing a filibuster-proof 60 Senate seats thanks to a surge in Democratic support. Races in Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Oregon are trending heavily blue.

But it's the implicit that truly shows the enormity of the last few weeks in this campaign.

Like the effects of McCain going negative so early. Marc Ambinder gets it:

One worry for Republicans is that McCain has already gone too negative too quickly; you never pull out the strongest punches against your opponent until the very end; it's hard to get tougher than the kindergarten ad... or over-the-top statements about Obama not being fit to lead.

McCain's advisers, perhaps thinking they were listening to their inner-Karl Rove, have already waged the character war in May, June, July, and August. It knocked Obama on his heels for a while, but he and his campaign survived. How do you top those blistering attacks from earlier this summer? Apparently, if you're Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign, you start pounding even harder on the character message, even if it means 1.) citing a source you've disparaged as a pro-Obama advocacy organization, and 2.) exaggerating the scope of the story to make it fit your shrinking narrative. One problem with this approach for the McCain campaign is that Americans have already seen and heard this ad nauseum, and so, to them, it's boring. The other is, unlike the past couple elections, the Democrats are organized and ready to strike back:

The economic crisis could actually be the catalyst of the downfall of the "Nixonland" politics of cultural resentment that reigned for the past forty years. Todd Beeton from MyDD hits the nail on the head here:

So far throughout this entire election cycle, remarkably, we've seen facts and rationality win out over fear. Will that continue over the next 30 days? It's clear that Palin's reference to plural "terrorists" (no comment, of course, from the McCain campaign on who these other terrorists Obama is "palling around with" are) and her evocation of racial cues in her speech yesterday are intended to make people fear Barack Obama, to portray him as "the other" but for that strategy to work, they need the nation to be its old 2004 self. Again, too bad for John McCain, not only is the country in a much different place than it was just 4 years ago, but the left is far better organized with a media infrastructure that has been able to effectively hit back against such attacks in real time. This isn't 2004 anymore.

Todd is right on all of those points, especially when we examine Palin, who just may be the best representative of Nixonland politics since the man himself. Talk about playing up cultural resentment, fear in ordinary, everyday Americans -- Palin's last month and a half of practice at this traditional brand of Republican politics has made perfect. But, again, it's 2008, and it's not working this year. In an economic crisis, it turns out lipstick, hockey moms, and Joe Six-packs aren't what they used to be.

I'll go further than Todd, though, and argue that another significant reason why 2008 is so different than 2004 is the presence of Millennials in the electorate. Jerome Armstrong interviewed Michael Hais and Morley Winograd, the authors of Millennial Makeover, in April. One of the questions Jerome asked Hais and Winograd dealt with the positioning of Millennials in the electorate -- were enough of them able to vote to actually make a difference?

Only third to half of the Millennial Generation will be eligible to vote in 2008. Wouldn't that point to 2012 as the election where this generation will have its greatest impact? On the other hand, if you look at the years of realignments, 1828-1860 was 32 years, 1860-1896 was 36 years, 1896 to 1932 was 36 years, and 1932 to 1968 was 36 years. Now, it's been 40 years since 1968. And we could be looking at 44 years if it winds up being 2012 for the realignment.

Certain fundamental demographical facts about Millennials make it likely that 2008 will be the realigning election. There are currently about 100 million Millennials ranging in age from 5 to 26 years old, making it America's largest generation. Millennials now comprise about one-third of the U.S. population, a percentage that will only grow in coming years as members of older generations pass from the scene. Given the fact that many Millennials will not yet be able to vote this year, it is certainly true that the full force of this huge generation will be most strongly felt in elections beyond that of 2008. Nevertheless, we argue that Millennials will have a decisive impact this year. This will be due, in large part, to the unity of the Millennial Generation. Millennials, unlike Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers, are not sharply divided along gender, racial, or ideological lines. Moreover, a clear majority of Millennials identify as Democrats, while the two next older generations are divided fairly evenly between the two parties. Assuming that the Millennial Generation retains its unity, it should provide the decisive balance between the more sharply divided older generations in 2008 and beyond.

Historically, realigning elections occur when a new group of voters enters the electorate in significant numbers for the first time and their unified attitudes tip the balance of power decisively to one party or the other. Keep in mind that in American presidential elections a 53/47 victory is considered decisive. Consequently, a realigning generation's numbers don't have to be overwhelming to cause this outcome. Normally, in the subsequent national election after the realignment, this shift in party fortunes and policy attitudes is ratified by an even larger victory for the newly dominant party. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt won big in 1932, but the New Deal realignment was reaffirmed in a much larger landslide in 1936. Richard Nixon won relatively narrowly in 1968, but he won in a landslide in 1972, reconfirming the electoral shift to the GOP. Whichever party wins in 2008 will do so clearly, and then will likely win a landslide victory in 2012, bringing with it a mandate for sweeping changes in policy that will be debated intensely in the years between the first victory and the second.

Emphasis added. I think we should also remember that Millennials not only are more unified in their political preferences than previous generations, but they're also more serious -- more meritocratic and pragmatic -- in their approach. They want the best product for its money. There's clearly a job that needs to be done, and rebuilding the country is going to take a huge effort. Millennials, an optimistic, can-do, collaborative generation, want someone who's willing to take on the challenge and prove their competence in doing so.

So when we revisit the latest McCain campaign strategy, is this mold of young voters really going to be convinced that the best hope for our country during these troubling times is the candidate who won't even talk about it?

Not only is this campaign slipping away for McCain, but he's quickly becoming a Herbert Hoover -- the candidate who tried to push away and resist destiny; the candidate who maintained that deregulation was the best way to go; the candidate who said the fundamentals of the economy are strong; the candidate who was the weakest on using the latest technology of his time; the candidate who just didn't understand.

It's not 2004 anymore, John. Things are changing.

I saw a piece from Reuters yesterday that I thought was interesting. It talks about the ways in which the Clinton and Obama campaigns are taking their first fists of mud and throwing them in the way of the opposition. This is something everyone in politics likes to talk about but how it affects young people is something I've never seen covered, nor have I even thought about it myself.

Every campaign must go negative. It would be great if campaigns were all about flowers and candy and buying everyone in the world a puppy, but the only way that a candidate can show the differences between him/herself is by alluding to those differences.

There are two ways to do this... 1. be comparative - aka show the differences between yourself and your opponent on a specific issue. This is like Hillary talking about the differences between hers and Obama's health care packages and the ways in which they are different. And 2. Attack them. This is like Hillary alluding to Obama being full of pretty words and no action.

"Young people have been drawn to Obama's campaign by his idealistic message and the strength of his grass-roots organizing, said Peter Levine of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, which studies youth voting...

But a negative campaign could stop the surge in its tracks, Levine and other researchers said."

People like to say all the time that they don't like when campaigns get nasty. They don't like people attacking one candidate. So why is it that year after year campaigns continue to do it? Because it works.

I had a media consultant explain it to me on the very first campaign I ever worked on. He said that if you were McDonnalds you had 30 seconds from now until the end of time to explain to the general public why your cheeseburgers were better than Wendy's how would you do it? First you'd say, we're the best and here's why - but then you have to tell them why Wendy's isn't the best either. Either they are made of dead people or they give you cancer or you're not cool if you eat Wendy's or whatever.

Campaigns are the same way.

"What could go wrong is if you get a food fight between the major parties," Levine said. "Turnout will be much better if it is positive."

I kinda haft to scream BS on this one. Sure people would prefer it, but I think if you do a comparative ad that deals with issues, people will still see it as negative.

I think its possible for a candidate to go negative or be comparative without blowing their political capital. "Harvard University's Institute of Politics found that many young voters had soured on politics due to bickering of the candidates in the run-up to the vote."

If you check out the survey it verifies what we have seen all along. Young voters crave authenticity above all else. They appreciate candidates who are honest with them and they appreciate positive messages. But going negative isn't deterring them from the voting booth. If they were turned off by mudslinging my guess is that they weren't they keen on voting in the first place. Most young voters know that the stakes are too high this election to be easily swayed by a message like this...

I just don't buy it.