: Booming pop-guns…
Howard Kurtz offers a rundown of tactics by certain Democratic candidates to knock Howard Dean off his legitimate front-runner pedestal (def.: a lead exceeding the MoE of one or more national polls plus the most effective fund raising efforts).
But to think of these statements as “tactics,” i.e. rhetorically calculated to achieve a persuasive effect, seems rather charitable.
What do the trailing candidates want?
Certainly, these candidates would like to achieve front-runner status. Whether they are aware of the Mayer predictive model or not, it is commonly understood that such status generally leads to the nomination.
How does a candidate move the polls, i.e. effectively campaign?
My answer: The ol’ fashioned way. A candidate must do all of these things during the six to eight months prior to the primary season: 1) Craft a winning message; 2) Project a presidential image; 3) Gain credible support and endorsement; 4) Raise sufficient funds, and 5) Effectively counter political attacks.
Notice what that list does not include: Effectively attack opponents.
Negative campaigning “works,” but what we also know is that effective counter measures often trump attacks. The public generally sees both tactics as negative campaigning. The public takes a dim view of the candidate that won’t defend honor. Once defended against, however, the attack loses its persuasive power. We saw this happen for the first time in the electronic era when Richard Nixon defended himself against charges of financial impropriety in 1952 by giving the “Checkers” speech.
Joe Lieberman offers us a prime example of what a candidate should not do. Upon the capture of Saddam Hussein, he said: “This news also makes clear the choice the Democrats face next year. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place.”
That statement has the sound of common sense, which is exactly the red flag citizens should notice. This is argument by sound bite. It reduces a complicated situation to pure pathos. We are supposed to feel about this bite, not think about it. As a first salvo, it is quite effective rhetorically.
But upon reflection following a counter argument, Lieberman’s pathetic appeal withers; it loses its rhetorical effectiveness. I predict further argument for this contention may be seen in the polls next week.
What should the trailing candidates do now?
If they understood the predictive power of Mayer’s model, they might choose to exit the race (Sharpton, Braun, Kucinich) or adjust their messages to positively affect the party platform, and the Dean candidacy, for the main election campaign. If they do not understand Mayer, then they may wish to review points 1 through 5 above.
If the Mayer model holds for 2004, and I see no reason at this moment why it won’t, then Dean has the nomination locked up unless he does something monumentally stupid (e.g. Hart in 1988, the only anomaly to Mayer since 1980). A conclusion Mayer draws from his research on primary campaigns (citation in the link above): The concept of “campaign strategy” is over rated because such strategies have little effect on the outcome.
I’ve noticed that several pundits have identified the Mayer predictive model, if not by name, at least by effect. None seem too pleased. But I do have a problem with your dismissal of pathos - I agree more closely with something I read in WSJ the other day - that politics is a mass-market phenomenon - short on ideas and high on emotion. Howard Dean rose to prominence with emotion - anger, and that is what sustains him. He has backed away from his moderate record as governor in favor of an Angry Left Agenda. I don’t think you should be so quick to dismiss emotion in the equation of this election cycle politics.
Yes, I’ve seen a few specific references to Mayer. The press doesn’t seem to want to face what the data clearly show.
I don’t dismiss pathos. It is, among the three major appeals, by far the strongest and, in that regard, the most important. But that doesn’t mean I have to accept that appeal as the most effective in all rhetorical situations. It’s employment is a kairotic choice that may be judged as effective or not as the case may be. In this case, I’m going with “not”
The press master narrative of an angry, leftist Dean is out of whack, in my opinion (but, then, most of their narratives about the candidates–even Bush–are out of whack). While he certainly gets some mileage out of “anger” (nothing new in campaign politics), his record on the trail seems to me just as centrist as his record as governor. I think many pundits want to pigeon-hole his war stance as leftist–indeed any opposition as leftist, which I consider merely pejorative nonsense.