Campaign Negativity - 2012 Presidential Primaries
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•228 views
This document summarizes research on negativity in the 2011-2012 US presidential primaries. It defines negativity as going on the offensive by emphasizing an opponent's personality rather than issues. Historically, newspapers peddled partisan attacks. The study examines whether frontrunners refrain from attacks while challengers use them. It proposes candidates in weaker polling positions will be more negative and tests this in social media. Understanding negativity's causes and effects across media is important as the Internet transforms campaigns.
Campaign Negativity - 2012 Presidential Primaries
- 1. An Analysis of Negativity in the 2011-12 Presidential Primaries Mia Moody-Ramirez, Ph.D. & Joseph Brown, Ph.D., Aundrea Payne, Madeline Lloyd and Lyzette Garza,
- 2. Discussion Points •Definition of negativity •History of negativity •Concept of Competitive Position
- 3. Definitions of Negativity Negativity: •The process of going on the offensive. •Ignores issues and party agendas. •Emphasizes a candidate’s personal attributes or personality traits. •Includes language that is hostile or aggressive.
- 4. The History of Negativity Negativity takes its origins in what they called the “American tradition of negative campaigning.” Newspapers were not independent, but the voices of the political part that controlled them.
- 5. The History of Negativity One of the first negative television advertisements was against President Dwight D. Eisenhower, entitled “How’s that again, general?” It was aired in 1956.
- 6. Concept of Competitive Position States frontrunner presidential primary candidates are less likely to resort to negative campaigning in news releases than their counterparts. The competitive position model posits that negative campaigning is directed against frontrunner and Frontrunners tend to refrain from such behavior unless attacked by an opponent.
- 7. Two camps of research on Negative campaigning Skaperdas and Grofman – prescribe a different tactic for each campaign situation with the optimal mix of “positive” and “negative” spending reflecting relative strength of the opponents. Harrington and Hess – predicts different strategies based on the personal characteristics of the candidates (or the public’s perception of those characteristics) but no change in campaign tactics based solely on the position of the candidate in the polls. *
- 8. Candidate Position Lovett and Shachar (2011) observed that candidates are more likely to resort to negative campaigning when they are behind in the polls, to slow the momentum of frontrunners. Our study tried to see if this model is also true within social media.
- 9. Propositions (1) If a candidate’s initial support is sufficiently high relative to that of the opponent, that candidate will not engage in negative campaigning. (2) If candidate’s initial support is sufficiently low…then candidate may put all of his effort into negative campaigning. (3) The front-runner…engages in more positive and less negative campaigning than his opponent. The proposition that stragglers attack and front-runners do not are sometimes viewed as “conventional wisdom” but before this study, there was little empirical evidence to support this view. Harrington and Hess suggest this so-called conventional wisdom is coincidence. *
- 10. Study Importance The study adds to the growing body of knowledge seeking to identify and understand the precipitants of negative campaigning. The growing usage of the Internet as a source of political information has spurred a growing interest in the Internet as a tool for political campaigning