Fear, Negative Ads and RoboCalls

If you live in a "swing state", are you getting "robocalls"? These are computer-generated calls that question Obama's relationships and economic platform (even Palin has criticized them); click on the header to view more on robocalls. Why is this tactic so useful? My guesses include:

1. It's cheap "marketing"
2. It keeps misconceptions in the minds of those called
3. It distracts Americans, especially those with less political knowledge
4. Though it's negative campaigning, polls show Americans are influenced by it 1

BTW: A Minnesota company owned by the CEO of the 2008 Republican National Convention is responsible. 2

I suggest that these calls are another form of fear-mongering. According to an article in Newsweek, it "reveals the power of fear to sway voters. Half a century of research has shown that fear is one of the most politically powerful emotions a candidate can tap, especially when the fears have a basis in reality...." 3 Apparently, anger comes in a close second. According to the same article, fear makes people more likely to go to the polls and vote. Interestingly, other political scientists argue that negative campaigns keep voters at home.4

One of the most renowned examples of this is Lyndon Johnson's "daisy" ad. According to David Mark, in his book, Going Dirty, "Negative campaigning works, which is why candidates regularly employ it...it is particularly effective when ads focus the electorate on a specific issue."5 According to the Journal of Marketing, this negativity effect works mainly on voters who already dislike the candidate.

"Millions of dollars are spent marketing political candidates during each election year. An increasing percentage of these dollars is spent on negative campaigning (Ansolabhere and Iyengar 1995; Devlin 1993; Lau and Sigelman 1998) because of the belief that negative information about political candidates is more influential than positive information in swaying voter preferences (Aragones 1997; Bunker 1996; Johnson-Cartee and Copeland 1991; Klein 1991, 1996; Lau 1985; Pinkleton 1997). Consistent with this belief, media gurus often give negative news quadruple weight compared with positive news (as specified by the Merriam formula used to compute media impact; Kroloff 1988). It is because of this firm belief in the weight of negative information that political pundits continue to advocate its use, despite recent data that demonstrate that negativity in political campaigning disenfranchises voters and could lead to low voter turnout and involvement (Ansolabhere and Iyengar 1995)." 6

So, the conclusion is that, no matter how popular the candidate, his or her negatives matter more than positives to the American public; we don't vote for candidates, but against. This is why more & more advertising dollars are spent on such ads.

Sources
1. Newsweek; 8/11/2008, Vol. 152 Issue 6, p34-36, 2p, 4 color
2. REsearch Minnesota
3. Newsweek (Atlantic Edition); 12/24/2007, Vol. 150 Issue 26, p24-28, 5p
4. Reason; Nov2006, Vol. 38 Issue 6, p2-2, 1p
5. Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning by David Mark. Lanham,
MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006. 280pp.
6. Journal of Marketing; Jan2005, Vol. 69 Issue 1, p131-142, 12p.