After some 40 years in politics, I’ve learned to be suspicious of revolutionary new campaign formulas that promise victory.
Sure, politics changes. Ideologies rise, technology evolves, coalitions shift. But most of the rules that determine successful campaign strategies have proven remarkably durable.
As an example, it’s a given that everything in politics is compared to something else. Most of the time voters don’t get their ideal candidate, they get to pick the least egregious option.
Here’s another. Tactics matter, but message is king. In truly competitive elections, clever ads and high-octane turn-out operations can’t rescue a candidate who has nothing useful to say.
To be sure, some of the old assumptions have shown their age. As biases harden, and polarization intensifies, the differences between candidates seem less important than the enthusiasm of their base. How else to explain the recent Democrat predilection for socialist over almost equally far left progressive choices.
Character once counted. No longer, at least among the highly partisan.
But in our long history of campaign politics, the most enduring rule in the campaign playbook is now being called into question.
The rule is this: emotion beats reason, always. Anger defeats facts. Fear overwhelms evidence. Tribal instincts trump persuasion.
Shockingly, a recent survey from America’s New Majority Project clearly suggests the emotion-over-reason rule is now on a collision course with something unprecedented: a wave of voter exhaustion.
Those Americans not obsessed with ideological extremes are tiring of the near constant manipulation foisted on them by the purveyors of modern political practice. They’re tired of being yelled at. Tired of every disagreement being treated as a moral failure. And perhaps most important, tired of being asked to suspend common sense in favor of escalating outrage.
The survey’s findings are striking.
The survey tested competing messages on some of the most contentious issues facing the country. What it revealed is that candidates who anchor their messages in verifiable facts and draw documented contrasts with their opponents consistently outperform those who rely on purely emotional attacks.
According to the survey, a fact-based approach to messaging delivers a 5 to 9- point advantage overall, and up to a 14-point advantage with independent voters.
In a midterm environment where competitive districts are decided in the narrow band between 48% and 52%, that kind of advantage could mean the margin of victory.
This survey should give every political wannabe and campaign operator pause.
Because if these results hold, then one of the oldest commandments of politics is being overwhelmed by a growing demand for something far less visceral, but infinitely more valuable.
Credibility.
It makes sense if you’re one of those Americans who don’t wake up in the morning looking for reasons to hate your neighbor. Chances are you’re less interested in the most outrageous insult than in trying to make sense of a noisy world. You just want someone who will treat you like an adult.
The survey showed believability is strained when attack messages aren’t backed up with evidence. In fact, even the most outrageous attacks never exceeded 52% believability across any issue tested.
By contrast, more dispassionate messaging that compared the verified positions of two candidates achieved far higher believability. On the issue of biological men in women’s sports, the contrast message reached 65% believability, the survey’s single highest score. On welfare reform, 61%. Healthcare, 59%.
When a message cited a specific vote, named a specific bill and suggested voters look it up themselves, it transforms an allegation into evidence.
Consider the split-test messaging on taxes:
Fact-anchored contrast: “I voted for HR1, the Working Families Tax Cut Act, stopping a $1,700 tax increase for a typical American family. My opponent voted against it. You don’t have to take my word for it—look up the vote yourself.”
Attack: “Democrats voted to steal $1,700 straight from hardworking families—hammering seniors, taxing tips and overtime. Same old pattern. Working Americans pay the price.”
The less inflamed contrast message earned 55% believability and a +19 net vote advantage. The more emotional attack message scored only 48% with a net +14 benefit. It’s the more credible way the message is phrased, not the issue itself, that produced the gap.
Not surprisingly, the survey identifies Independents as those most likely to be moved by credibility. On healthcare, the contrast message produced a +26 net vote advantage among independents versus +12 for the attack: a 14-point gap, the survey’s largest independent framing differential. On taxes, the gap was 11 points.
Helping propel the reason-over-emotion voter mind-set is the advent of near instant access to information. During focus groups conducted alongside the survey, participants repeatedly said they intend to fact-check what politicians say. Not later. Right then and there.
That’s a massive game-changer.
Until the smart phone, candidates could make claims knowing voters had neither the time nor ability to verify them. Today, verification is just a few clicks away.
In short, honesty has become a competitive advantage.
Tell me what you did. Tell me why you did it. Show me the evidence. Treat me with respect enough to let me decide for myself.
While the survey shows the previously reliable emotion-trumps-reason rule is breaking down, it proves the durability of another rule many campaign professionals seem to have forgotten.
Believability matters because trust matters. And once earned, trust remains the most potent force in politics today.
Tony Marsh is a 40-year veteran of professional political consulting and media production. In the U.S., Marsh has served as a senior consultant for more than 300 Republican campaigns at every level of public office including 6 presidential campaigns. Marsh generally serves as a strategic communications consultant specializing in messaging, audience targeting, and creating compelling marketing and advertising that delivers the messages to the audiences.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
(DCNF)
