The Sound of 'Splainin'
I've been through a few presidential cycles in my cycles around the sun. Not as much as many, but more than a few. I know there are differences and similarities in each. But this time, this time feels ... different.
( Cut for my rocking chair on porch moment. )
( Cut for my rocking chair on porch moment. )
They were also the second and third choice of a lot of people! Meaning they weren't "losers" as the article exclaims
Weren't necessarily, anyways.
Ranked-choice voting doesn't guarantee that the winner will be better in terms of favorable/unfavorable views of the voters; it's a legitimate criticism that ranked-choice can result in the election of less-popular candidates than largest-plurality:
For example, consider the following setup:
- 45% favor candidate A, think candidate B is bad and candidate C is worse
- 30% favor candidate B, think candidate A is bad and candidate C is worse
- 25% favor candidate C, think candidate B is bad and candidate A is worse
In ranked-choice, 55% of the votes favor B after C is eliminated. B wins, but only 30% of the voters think B is a good candidate. In largest-plurality, A would win, and 45% of the voters would think the winner was a ( ... )Reply
By "that election style" you mean largest-plurality, right?
I do.
Why do you think that largest-plurality "buys the most ads" relative to ranked-preference?
Excellent question. Every time there is an election (well, it used to happen every time), someone brings up some form of ranked choice. One of the advantages of ranked choice is that more than two candidates can run at the same time.
Which has a profound influence on the tone of the campaign.
When two are running, the most points are scored going negative, pointing out the real/perceived weakness of the opponent. One can spend equal time promoting one's strengths and the weaknesses of the other.
Ah, but when there are more viable candidates in the running, there simply isn't time to just call names, lest one forgets/is unable to tout one's own qualifications. The overtly negative candidate seems too negative when he/she has to aim barbs at multiple targets. More than two therefore creates a less negative campaign in general ( ... )
Reply
Maybe. If high-stakes national campaigns were done through ranked-choice elections, I'm not convinced politicians wouldn't find effective ways to do negative campaigning anyways. I mean, look at Trump, he didn't wait until the field had narrowed to "go negative" in his primary campaign.
If, however, one counts more than just the direct telly/radio ads
That's why I said direct effect, we're in agreement here. But while both Clinton and Sanders are talking about overturning Citizens United, no one's talking about overturning Buckley.
Reply
Ah, that's strategic. When people are focused on two candidates even before the field narrows, expect those candidates to go neg on each other. The same thing happened when Clinton and Sanders were the top two; Clinton went after Sanders even though there was another debater, standing right there, still "technically" in the race. His poll numbers were low enough for her to ignore him.
I should distinguish here that "going negative" refers not to negative comments in general, but specifically to negative attacks on the other candidate. Trump had gone negative about everything he didn't like, not just the other GOPpers in the race. Those people he all but ignored, except when he was polling high and they attacked him. Then, he responded.
As to finding ways to go negative, this has already been done on a Biblical scale, though mostly not by the candidates. Again, lots of stuff in Mayer's book on this, stuff I plan to share.
...no one's talking about overturning Buckley.
Or Bellotti. Both of those ( ... )
Reply
I don't think it's accurate that Trump ignored chances to attack his primary opponents. Rather, he picked off his opponents one at a time with negative attacks he tested in front of his rally audiences: First Jeb Bush ("weak", "low energy"), then "little" Marco Rubio, then "Lyin'" Ted Cruz. Check out this video (which I got from our mutual friend, kmo). While I don't quite agree with the title and (despite the channel name) it's more about Trump's marketing savvy than his charisma (a better video about that is this one), it does a very good job of explaining Trump's very successful approach to negative campaigning in a crowded field.
Of course, you're right that he's not just negative about his opposition, and he's found an audience where denigrating the opposition isn't viewed negatively.
Reply
I will note that the weaknesses he zeroed in on with the other GOPpers were known; for a tiny magazine I recently reviewed The Wilderness, McKay Coppins' take on the GOP candidate field. I wonder if Trump took those traits-the weakness, smallness, and lying-ness-from that book. (I doubt it, since he all but fired missiles at Coppins based on an early article about Trump ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment