Document Actions
2008: Year of the Nice?
posted at 2008-01-03 21:49 | Last modified 2008-01-04 08:48
Quote of the night: Presumptive third-place Fourth-place Iowa finisher Republican John McCain, speaking from New Hampshire:
“ I think the lesson of this election in Iowa is that one, you can’t buy an election in Iowa, and that two, negative campaigns don’t work. They don’t work there, and they don’t work here in NH.”
If he’s right – and one state doesn’t prove it – it would be an utter paradigm shift in American politics. For decades, conventional wisdom has been that “although voters ‘don’t like’ negative ads, they work.”
I’ve wondered for the past few weeks whether 2008 might be the year of the Nice Guy (and I don’t mean that in a gendered sense). We’ve heard ad nauseum that "voters are looking for change." I’ve been thinking maybe the change they’re seeking is less about demographics or geography than philosophy.
Case in point: While President Bush has racked up some the lowest approval ratings in the history of his office, Congress hasn’t fared any better. As the news cycle quickens, it’s harder than ever for Joe Voter to miss the partisan vitriol that passes for action inside the beltline lately. Nothing is happening, and the voters are blaming everyone involved, D or R.
So here’s my hypothesis – what if this is the year that negative campaigning stops working? What if '08 voters are less concerned about expertise or experience than (perceived) integrity and credibility? I’m not saying that’s good or bad. But it’s one of the main reasons I picked Obama and Huckabee to win Iowa - because both led without resorting to overtly negative tactics, besting competitors who spent a lot of money following the conventional wisdom.
What do you think? Drop me a line.
