Why doesn't negative campaigning work like it used to?

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Hillary Clinton apparently thought that she had a killer sound bite during Thursday's debate when she ripped Barack Obama as a promoter of "change your can Xerox."

Instead, the audience booed, critics winced and once again the New York senator's attempt to demonize her rival fell flat, another illustration of how 2008, at least so far, is the year that negative campaigning just doesn't work as it once did.

"It looks like people are just burned out on that stuff," said Peter W. Schramm, the executive director of the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs in Ohio.

In state after state, voters said they moved from Clinton to Obama — or, on the Republican side, from Mitt Romney to John McCain or Mike Huckabee — partly because they were tired of what seemed like politics as usual."

more

[patrice]

1. the internet. nt

[tabatha]

2. yes, and also people are more savvy

[Flabbergasted]

4. Why the internet?

[patrice]

14. It is possible for people to "see" and interact with people they quite likely never would have

otherwise ever met.

Users can take their own time to figure out any given message (thus eliminating socially embarassed "learning"), any message that they are interested in and curious enough about to apply themselves to, with all of the wonderfully accessible and rich information sources available to support the individual's learning process (that is, if an individual commits to learning). The richness of e-resources and the basic viability of autonomous, empirically grounded, organic learning, with such rich e-support resources, has made conventional media ir-relevant to enough people that the overall discourse is changing from what it was under the exclusive royal reign of Corporate Media Imagery-and-Messages. Of course, this is not a false either-or situation but, if you've been watching since 2001, more of a dialogue in which at least some voices are creating their own messages that ARE, eventually, being echoed somewhat in MSM.

[Rosemary2205]

13. I agree

more accurate information in more places to more people. Makes it hard to lie, twist and smear and actually fool people with it. It's not by accident that the neocon base is more likely to get their information from "old" sources rather than internet - and probably explains why that small but vocal minority of America still supports those assholes.

It also explains why a certain contingent in Business, the Media and in Washinton want to get control over the internet tubes. :)

[patrice]

20. Right! and all of that is so accessible and convenient that whatever spark of natural

organic impulse to learn a person might have has a chance to grow guided autonomously (which I believe is a characteristic of true organic motivation) by anyone who wants to follow their own instincts.

[DJ13]

3. Hillary's campaign just doesnt 'get it'

When they're losing to a candidate who's principle appeal is one of uniting the country across all lines because they are tired of an ineffective, unresponsive government due to it being divided, the WORST thing you can do is to try and be negative.

[Flabbergasted]

5. Good observation. What do you do in this case?

[rucky]

12. She's kind of in a box, now.

She can't out-inspire him. She should stick to policy and make it a palatable as possible. I see she's taken a few cues from John Edwards by telling stories about real people. That seems to be more on the right track.

[DJ13]

16. "What do you do in this case?"

With Hillary as the candidate, theres nothing much that CAN be done (especially at this stage).

The only effective counter is to run your own inspirational campaign, one that can excite potential voters and honestly reflects a desire to help improve our country.

That, unfortunately for Hillary, requires charisma to pull off.

A quality she has never been known to easily demonstrate in her public life.

She had a flash of it in NH, and had she continued being a positive and inspirational candidate she might have a comfortable lead by now, but she went back into her shell as soon as she won there and never came back out again because its not what she's comfortable with.

Its really too late now, as even if she tried it Im afraid it would be seen as just another ploy at this late stage.

[jmg257]

6. Because it is the SAME OLD "Politics as usual" BS. We want change! nt

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Obamas Swiftboating of the Clintons on race in SC worked great.

You don't get any more negative than calling someone a racist.

[Renew Deal]

8. The right kind of negative campaigning works

But planned cheap shot sound-bites bites don't. Also, she went after a non issue.

[democrattotheend]

9. It's a risky strategy in primaries

Negative campaigning is a much riskier strategy in primaries than in a general election, since most of the voters in the primary would vote for the other candidate in the general, and a lot more people support one candidate but like other candidates and don't want to see them attacked. There are also people (myself included) who are squeamish about negative campaigning in primaries because of the risk that it could hurt the party's chances in the general by making candidate partisans more polarized and making it tougher to unite around a candidate.

[H2O Man]

10. Right.

Especially true in a democratic primary.

[global1]

11. I Say That It Is Thanks To Karl Rove And *Co That Negative Campaigning......

isn't as effective as it used to be. We have see over a decade of negative campaigning, lies, innuendo's, etc. We've called them out on it many times and they've been exposed. People are fed up and won't stand for that anymore. They see what the result of believing this crap - they got 8 years of *, war, torture, lies, fear, spying, economic disaster and on and on and on.

I believe that the American people won't get suckered down that path again and look at all negative campaigning with disdain. It just won't work anymore.

This is part of the change that people are looking for.

[nancyr]

15. Because we're sick of it?

[andym]

17. The strength of a soundbite attack is related to the response

The strength of a sound bite attack is related to the response and to the underlying reality.
A particularly effective sound bite attack was Walter Mondale in 1984 against Gary Hart. Mondale asked "Where's the beef?" which applied a very funny Wendy's ad to the campaign. Mondale used this to deflate Hart's "new ideas" campaign.

The problem for Hart was that he didn't respond in the same humorous vein (something like "My grade A plan for healthcare is ..." etc, and that he refused to describe his "new ideas" in public stating that we should read them in several books.

[Yael]

18. I have to temper my excitement about PA getting the Iowa Treatment[tm]

with the thought of the scorched-earth that has my state in its cross-hairs.

My concern is that this is going to sully the candidates and end up hurting us in the General.

Hillary needs to stick to WHY HER as opposed to her current WHY NOT HIM.

[tekisui]

19. Obama has successfully framed his candidacy as one of Hope.

If you attack Obama, you attack Hope. He has, quite skillfully, counter-attacked every shot with ease and grace. So, that after he has responded, Hillary has been left asking, "Can he just do it again? Can he hit me from what appears to be the high road?"

And, the answer is Yes, he can. He is just that good of a politician.

[union_maid]

21. I don't think that Dems appreciate attacks on other viable Dems

I think that's one thing. Speaking only for myself, from the start of this primary season, I liked each candidate a little less for each negative attack on another. I kind of leaned Edwards in the beginning, but would get a bad taste in my mouth when he attacked Hillary, even though she wasn't even my third choice. That didn't mean I thought she wasn't a smart and good politician. In my case it was mostly because I thought, and still think, she'd be a one woman GOTV effort for an otherwise somewhat demoralized RW. It's unfair, but life is unfair that was just my take on it.

It's one thing to contrast yourself with the others honestly. They have to draw some sort of contrasts, but most serious primary voters know that the differences in their positions are smaller than the differences in proposed policies and the final realities are likely to be no matter who is elected.

All the early polls showed that Democrats were pretty happy with our slate of Democratic hopefuls. That meant we kind of liked them. We want, as a whole, for whomever is the nominee to prevail. Rovian style attacks don't really belong in this primary. We'll see what happens in the GE. Could be a different story.

[Orsino]

22. Because the media aren't really trusted much.

A meme that appears is instantly contradicted, then the contradiction is contradicted, ad infinitum--the same reason the Gotcha game played in GD:P isn't changing any minds.

[Eric J in MN]

23. The people who booed were probably Obama supporters.

Supporters of a candidate were never fond of negativity towards that candidate.