« Will Major Dailies Do Stories On Allen's Divorce And Warrants? | Home | CT-SEN: Times Endorses Lamont: Taking On Lieb "Showed Real Courage" »
Poll: All Negative Ads Are A Turnoff, But GOP Ads Are Worse
Interesting tidbit from today's Newsweek poll -- respondents say negative ads from both parties actually make voters less likely to vote for their candidates, but GOP ads are more effective at repulsing voters than Dem ads are:
Most worrisome for the GOP? As a wave of negative political ads from both parties takes to the airwaves in the final days before the election, voters so far judge the Republican ads more harshly. Overall, about two-thirds of registered voters say neither parties’ ads have made much difference in how they’re going to vote. Just 9 percent of registered voters who have seen Republican advertisements say the spots make them more likely to vote for Republican candidates; 24 percent say the ads make them less likely. The Democrats seem to turn off fewer voters with their commercials and win more over, but it’s still a wash. Fourteen percent of registered voters say they’re more likely to vote for a Democrat because of the ads they’ve seen; 16 percent say they’re less likely.
In ten days or so, the roar of negative ads will abruptly disappear.
Advertisement
More-likely/less-likely results tend to be worthless.
Most respondents who say "less likely" are just using the question to express disapproval of the opposition, who they had zero probability of voting for in the first place.
October 28, 2006 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you are saying that this is just another poll reflecting greater intention to vote Democratic this year?
October 28, 2006 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That seems to me patently obvious.
What's worse is that what the respondents are saying may be the exact opposite of the truth.
Nearly everyone interviewed reports they just hate those awful negative ads and would love to punish the miscreants running them. Then they reward the blackguards.
Best, Terry
October 28, 2006 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems to map to FactCheck.org, who released an update a few weeks ago which pointed out that 91% of the Republican ads were pure negative:
http://www.factcheck.org/article460.html
Sure, to some extend people express disapproval of the other party's ads, but there is a point beyond which pure negative ads will take you. And that's being reflected in the poll.
People may not respond all positive to issue-oriented ads. But they certainly respond negatively to pure negative ads. Especially ones that seem to run all the time.
October 28, 2006 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
In close races, such as the Senate races in TN and VA, negative ads only need to sway a few percentage points at the polls. If there are still 2 or 3% of Tennesseans who still consider themselves classic Dixiecrats, the GOP's 'Where the White-Women at?' scare tactics will work.
Whether it is negative ads aimed at 5% of the electorate who are racist, or voter suppression aimed at 5% Democratic base, the GOP has shown a mastery of the manipulation techniques needed to get them over the hump on election day.
This is why the GOP is so damn scared. In most of the vulnerable Republican districts, it is *not* close. And you can't influence big gaps as easily, whether it is by ads, voter suppression or fraud.
Never forget Florida 2000.
October 28, 2006 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I Was Polled For This
I've been push-polled several times this year, so at first I didn't believe it was really Newsweek. But these results prove to me it was, since these are the questions I was polled on. I did respond to the question about Bush with "Worst President Ever" before "clarifying" that this meant I disapproved. And that I thought the RNC's ad attacking Ford was racist, before "clarifying" that is was "too extreme" or whatever the alternative was.
As I was being polled, I was struck by the same thought I invariably have when reading about polls when they are released--this is a nice start, but when do they get to the real questions? Nope, sorry, none of that.
For starters, in this case, they could have asked about what constitutes a "negative ad" although they weren't really asking about negative ads, when it gets down to it. The Michael J. Fox ad isn't a negative ad. The attacks on him are negative, but the ad is about as substantive as you can get, and it's ckearly a contrast ad, as opposed to a negative one. Kathleen Hall Jaimeson wrote about this in a book she cowrote several years back. It's well-established that voters know the difference, and regard such ads as dramatically different from negative attack ads. They like contrast ads for the information they provide, and regard them as perfectly fine and appropriate.
What the Michael J. Fox ad did was the exact opposite of an attack ad. Those ads dehumanize and demean. The attack ads on stem cell research come out of an ideology of a "culture of life" (except for bad guys!) vs. a "culture of death." This ideology has been promoted for decades based on demonizing the so-called "culture of death," and all associated with it. (I'm in the middle of reading Theocons, can you tell?) The Michael J. Fox ad put a human face on the sacrifices being called for in the name of the "culture of life," and the lying scumbags who promote that mendacious crap did not like it, not one bit.
Boo-Hoo!
p.s. It's also well-established that the primary effect of negative ads is to drive down turnout, rather than to persuade. The GOP's problem this time out is that their own actions have been far more powerful at depressing their own turnout and energizing Dems than their own ads could possibly be at depressing Dem turnout.
October 29, 2006 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Repubs are in control of all three branches of government. They got there but by being overwhelmingly negative. Just ask Al Gore and John Kerry if you don't believe me.
That being said the over the top baseless attacks just aren't working this year and may backfire. The DCCC's first ad for Tammy Duckworth attacked Peter Roskam for wanting to ban books in the classroom citing an anthology that included stories by Dr. Suess and Little House on the Prairie author Laura Ingels Wilder. Hardly anybody believed it and it's an example of STUPID advertising. It's way over the top and just hurt Duckworth. Ya hear that Rahm? Now Roskam did say he wanted to ban that book because of other stories that "seemed to glorify violence and the occult."
If you have can find Roskam on record (not likely) saying he thinks Harry Potter books ought to be banned or celebrating Halloween is doing Satan's work for him you might have something.
People are desperate for honest clean campaigns.
Out here the NRCC negativity is so bad it is creating a backlash. It's all they have and they're running it into the ground. It may actually help us with turnout if Duckworth stays positive and act likes a winner. We have to dismiss Repub claims the desperate acts of losing campaigns as they have been all along.
October 29, 2006 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink