Let’s say Senator A and Senator B are running against each other. Would Senator A be able to run a positive campaign and keep her base and perhaps persuade some unndecided voters to her side?
Senator A: Senator B is a very competent and experienced senator who has done a lot of good for our state.
Senator B: A’s 16yo son was arrested for pot possession. Can we really trust her to represent our kid’s best interests?
A: yup, Greg Jr. was arrested for possession; he made a stupid decision and has paid the penalties. He can be a real bonehead, as many of our teens are. So, let’s talk about what needs to be done for our public schools. Here are some specifics I gathered from touring 25 of our facilities . . .
B: A’s political party ended funding for a new train tunnel that would have greatly reduced commuter traffic.
A: yes, they did. I believe this was shortsighted and in response to some complex political pressures. We have a transport engineer visiting the site next week to assess a next step for the project. Senator B really fought to keep this project going; I’m sure watching it crumble away was very difficult.
B: A supports the transgender bathroom biill - Senator A wants your kids to share a bathroom with a pervert!!
A: I sure do support this bill. We’ve posted an interesting article on our website that examines all sides of this question. Voters, please take a look and feel free to email me with your thoughts. Let’s have a conversation.
Reporter: A, are you aware that B cheated on his wife in 1993 with a Playboy model?
A: yes, I saw the allegation on CNN but I’m not going to judge him nor make this a campaign issue. B, like us all, is entitled to keep his personal life private; it has absolutely no bearing on his campaign and I will not comment on this.
I say NO. If that strategy could work these days, they’d be using it. Mudslinging has been empirically shown to be effective, and that is the coin of the realm in modern politics. For as long as I can remember, *every *campaign has been “the worst ever” as they continue to escalate the venom.
That’s why the Republicans finally nominated someone who can give as bad as he gets. And it worked. So, expect more of it.
ETA: and I don’t blame the politicians. I blame the voters for falling for it.
I think you need both… because if you only go positive, you’re surrendering a campaign weapon. On the other hand, going only negative has its own problems.
I know we are in IMHO, but this opinion is… very poor. IMHO.
The vast majority of politicians are not sleazes of any sort and voters are not morons.
The problem is voters feel that their vote isn’t worth spending much time thinking about. Which given the numbers, isn’t unreasonable. If you are going to contribute 1 millionth of the total to a single result, how much of your time is that worth?
I am not pleased with the solution currently adopted for this problem-significant groups of people banding together around a single issue and voting as a block. It used to be called a political party, now it is called the base. They spend all the time required to decide how to vote, then ignore other issues and compromises. Politicians either follow along or quickly find themselves no longer politicians.
What we need are groups who explicitly incorporate multiple points of view and compromise into their issues. So far, we don’t see much of that.
If people used more logic and critical thinking in making decisions, then I’d say yes. But politicians appeal to emotions, and emotionally driven decisions. And voters allow themselves to be manipulated by emotions. That’s why the mudslinging works.
If people actually looked objectively at what Trump said during the campaign, and were logical about it, they wouldn’t have voted against their own interests. For example, some actually called him a blue-collar billionaire, as if he were fighting for the working man. Had they objectively looked at his history, and listened to his words, they wouldn’t have been fooled.
It’s also important to remember that political mudslinging has a long history in America.
When I become dictator, people will be forced to think more logically, and make fewer decisions based solely on emotion.
In the US, our media is addicted to sleaze and insists on focusing on the horserace. It’s hard to take the high road when all the media coverage is about the Swiftboating. Sleaze brings ratings and ratings means money. That’s why Donald Trump is president today.
Back in '94, in San Jose, Tom McEnery ran against Zoe Lofgren in the Democratic primary for the House. McEnery was the former mayor, of one of the largest cities in the nation. Lofgren was nothing in comparison. The owner of the restaurant I worked for was friends with McEnery, who was a customer at the restaurant. He seemed like a good guy. I didn’t get involved in the campaign, but I did follow it because I wanted to see McEnery win.
Anyway, my memory of it was that he ran his campaign focusing on the issues, while Lofgren ran her campaign doing nothing but slinging mud at McEnery - much like the OP is laid out.
‘Positive and issue focused’ tend to get put together as a saying, but in my observation many negative and nasty campaigns are actually focused on substantive issues. Primaries in particular. ‘X isn’t left/right enough to represent out party’, based on serious issues, is pretty common in primaries. It just doesn’t remain ‘positive’ that often, giving way to the contestants misrepresenting their opponents past statements and actions on issues. But a lot of campaigns aren’t about personal dirt. And relatively positive primaries are not unheard of either.
But in general elections, the intense cultural divide now underlying the party divide in the US tends to make solid Democrat/Republicans view some of the others’ ‘major issues’ as phony and intentionally divisive when the other side really does see them as serious issues. For example, many believe ongoing racial oppression is no longer a major factor in American life but hyped by Democrats as if it were to energize base constituencies. Likewise many believe illegal immigration is just a blip overall on society’s radar in objective terms like impact on people’s economic well being, but again it’s ginned into a pseudo-major issue by Republicans to appeal to ugly gut feelings.
IOW the core of the two sides don’t agree what some of the major ‘issues’ are anymore. And to that extent a lot of politicking looks issue driven to some and emotionally manipulative to others.
Many older Americans remember the days when, for better or worse, there were unifying issues in America. Anti-communism, racial equality, environmental safety, improved rights for women were all things the vast majority of the population agreed on. Not all such issues turned out to be good issues to rally behind, but at least the vast majority did so. There were party and individual differences on approach to the issues, but at least most of us agreed on the problem. We are missing that now. As Cory El said, we no longer even agree on the problems much less the solutions. And we probably didn’t agree on the problems (for instance racial equality) in the era before the 50’s-70’s.
It is beginning to look like we did have the “good ol days” to wish for-the era of greased hair to bell bottoms! Now that is something I never thought I would say.
Senator Heitkamp ran a locally focused race in North Dakota to gain an upset win. From what I’ve read, she did a ton of ground work, shaking hands and traveling (she was also previous state Attorney General so she did have recognition) and talking about what she could do for North Dakota versus how her opponent was a monster-person. Of course, N. Dakota is a low population state and she probably wasn’t going to win a very Republican-leaning state on national Democratic issues or by slandering her GOP opponent.
Do you think dirty ads about a candidate moves voters over to their opponent? Or persuades undecideds? Some research suggest that political ads do pretty much close to nothing.
I could do without knowing about candidates’ legal (if scuzzy) sexcapades. Candidate John Peeny is married but shtupped his secretary 12 years ago - eh, sex between consenting adults I don’t need to know about.
Sexual harassment, rape, and sexual activity with minors is illegal and should be made public. I’m on the fence about paid prostitution. It’s technically a crime, but I don’t care if Trump cheated on his wife with an “escort.” His possible sex crimes, OTOH, are open season.
That is why there should be more of a focus on local and smaller elections. When the focus starts at state wide elections and ends at the presidential level, then you are right, your vote doesn’t count for much.
Getting people out to vote in local elections, where their vote actually does count, where sometimes there may only be a few hundred people voting on an issue or candidate, should get people more engaged.
And, as long as they are they are in the habit of taking their vote seriously and thinking about it on the local level, it shouldn’t be too hard to convince them to use the same logic and effort to influence the larger elections as well.
The problem with the way the OP phrased things is that it is boring. I don’t have a problem with it, and there are probably a number of people on this thread and on this board that have no problem reading detailed policy, but that’s not the majority of people.
Most people have busy lives, and politics are not a high priority. They will tune out very quickly when actual policy is being discussed, but will have their attention drawn back when raw meat is waved in front of them.
It’s the old adage, for every complex problem, there is a simple answer that it wrong. But, it’s simple, and makes sense, and is easy to understand, and can be contained in a soundbite. The complex answer requires much more research and thought in order to make an informed decision.
Those are things that do not matter to a policy wonk running for office, but do matter to a person running on their integrity.
I don’t care if someone has an affair, or if their kids get into drugs or even crimes, I’m not voting on those things.
I do care if a politician runs on things like the sanctity of marriage, and cheats, or runs on “drugs are bad, mkay”, and has kids that use drugs, or runs on abstinence only education, and has children who are pregnant out of wedlock.
These inform on how practical the policies the politician expresses actually are. If they cannot make them work int heir own home, then how do they expect to impose them on a nation?
I agree about the local politics, however, at least in my area, I see signs for local politicians at election time, and I know nothing about them. “Vote for Joe Schmoe” without even mentioning his party, or a website is useless if I want to find out more about him (city council races in my area are non-partisan, but I’d still like to find out about the candidates so I can make an informed decision on how they’ll govern).
I’d take the time to learn the issues if they made it easier for me to find out about them.
Fun thing about local polisticans is that they actually have time for you, too. They come around to my house to talk, they call me up to talk. They are always very happy to get a phone call, and they will let you talk their ear off and answer any questions you have in depth.
I mean, I just looked it up, and my district council had a total of 453 votes. They really do care about your vote. They care about your support too. One person could do much damage or help to a candidate by just talking to their neighbors.
The biggest effect shown is that negative campaigns persuade mildly-interested voters to stay home & not vote. And from current polling, most of them would have voted Democratic. So it’s in their interest for a Republican campaign to ‘go dirty’.
Now that is something I never thought I would say.