Over at MyDD.com, there's some consternation about how a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican in opinion polls, but named Democrats do poorly against named Republicans. As you might imagine, everyone is arguing that this is the reason why his or her electoral strategy MUST BE FOLLOWED. I think the explanation is pretty straightforward:
The more voters know about a particular candidate, the less they like that candidate.
I'm serious; this isn't snark. Any time that a political party is identified with controlling the Congress by more than 64 percent of the voting public, that party loses seats, even if that party doesn't actually control the Congress. The more public knowledge of a candidate or party there is, the more the negatives go up, and the positives go down.
It's a good null hypothesis anyway...
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Donald Trump is the president elect of the United States. Why?
Trump did not win because he is widely liked. He is NOT widely liked.
A very small number of Americans voted for Trump, and this number was magnified by the conservative-state-favoring electoral college, and most of those who did not…
Note to GOP - ACORN Was Defrauded and You Know It:
1. The GOP during the 70's, 80's and 90's employed a number of methods to register voters to insure the people they were registering were indeed Republican.
One method was to go through a neighborhood and register everyone who wasn't registered.…
As you may know, there's a special election campaign going on in the 20th Congressional District in NY. Jim Tedisco is the Republican candidate for the seat. He's running against a Democrat named Scott Murphy. Initially, Tedisco was considered to be the strong favorite for the seat. The…
I have studiously avoided picking a Democratic candidate to support. I will not have to decide until Super Tuesday, when Minnesotans caucus to support one or another candidate. I like Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons, including the simple fact that she has considerable experience in the…
As you might imagine, everyone is arguing that this is the reason why his or her electoral strategy MUST BE FOLLOWED.
Frankly, MyDD's just kind of turned into an unreadable mess the last few weeks.
What used to be an uncommonly informed site about politics under the magnifying glass is just turning into a battleground for invading waves of supporters of one presidential primary candidate or another, endlessly sniping at one another over petty missteps by one presidential candidate or another until any discussion of the issues of the campaign (or for that matter anything else) is entirely drowned out. The site operators keep expressing unhappiness at the direction the site has taken, but at the same time if you look at their actions they seem more interested in participating in the flamewars than doing something to calm them.
When Matt and Chris get their new site started up I might just start reading that instead...
Sounds like an argument in favor of parliamentary democracy to me.
Mike,
I have a related, but slightly different, hypothesis. If you are asked about a generic Democrat, then you will summon up what you think of as the defining characteristics of Democrats. If you are liberal, these might be positives, such as commitment to civil rights, equality, the environment, the poor, etc. On the other hand, if you are asked about a specific Democrat, then you will dwell, not on generic Democratic qualities, but on specific personality traits of this candidate: Does he or she seem sincere, or stuffy, or smart, or condescending, or honest, or whatever? These personal traits have nothing to do, specifically, with Democrats. Once the issues become personal, the race becomes a toss-up. Or perhaps one party or the other is better at grooming likable candidates, but the decision is no longer about the defining characteristics of one party versus the other.
This suggests a strategy for political parties: If you believe that your party's defining characteristics resonate with the public, then candidates should try to stay "generic". Don't try to make your candidate into a maverick, and don't try to make your candidate into a colorful personality---that can only hurt your chances.
On the other hand, if your party's defining characteristics fail to resonate with the public, or are considered negative to the public, then you should try to make the campaign personal. Focus on character, likability, personal virtue, etc. Staying "generic" doesn't help if the public doesn't approve of the generic candidate from your party.
Daryl,
Interesting idea. But what do you do when your issues resonate, but your party's image doesn't. I'm not sure how to solve that one...
This suggests a strategy for political parties: If you believe that your party's defining characteristics resonate with the public, then candidates should try to stay "generic". Don't try to make your candidate into a maverick, and don't try to make your candidate into a colorful personality---that can only hurt your chances.
I'm pretty sure this was the exact strategy that drove the Kerry, Gore, and Thomas Dewey campaigns:
I think the basic flaw in the "avoid defining your personality, stay generic" strategy is that "generic" is, unto itself, a defining personality trait. And historically it has not been a defining personality trait that voters like.
On the other hand this is basically the strategy that got Ronald Reagan elected President two or three times, so maybe there's something in it.
I think the basic flaw in the "avoid defining your personality, stay generic" strategy is that "generic" is, unto itself, a defining personality trait. And historically it has not been a defining personality trait that voters like