Aiming to sway voters, candidates emphasize hot-button issues across party lines

The 2004 presidential candidates reached out to voters across the political aisle – but not in a genuinely conciliatory spirit, according to a new analysis which says that George W. Bush and John Kerry sought to peel away voters from the opposing party using hot-button issues. The strategy leads to fragmentation, say political scientists, as candidates focus on multiple controversial issues, such as stem cell research or immigration, often communicating different priorities in an effort to gain votes.

D. Sunshine Hillygus, Frederick S. Danziger Associate Professor of Government in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, and Todd G. Shields, professor of political science at the University of Arkansas, extensively studied campaign strategy during the 2004 general election, work that may illuminate strategy in the current presidential race. The research has been published in a new book, "The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns" (Princeton University Press, 2008).

“We were surprised by the number of different issues that candidates took a stand on, and the individualization of messages to each voter,” Hillygus says. “By microtargeting these wedge issues, someone from the opposite party might be convinced to vote for the candidate on the basis of that issue. However, in emphasizing different controversial issues to different voters, it becomes more difficult for the rest of the electorate to understand the real priorities of the candidate.”

Candidates are interested in deploying campaign funds as strategically as possible, and a recent increase in the availability of voter information has enabled candidates to focus only on those individuals likely to vote, and potentially vote for the candidate. According to Hillygus, persuadable or swing voters are not likely to be uninformed or wishy-washy, or to lack party allegiances, since those individuals are unlikely to vote at all. In reality, those likely to switch their vote are individuals from the opposite party who agree with a candidate on a particular issue.

Since the 2000 election, candidates have amassed large voter databases compiled from voter registration files and supplemented with consumer information. These databases have made possible dog whistle politics, in which candidates communicate messages that can be heard only by intended targets, like the high-pitched dog whistle that can be heard by dogs but is not audible to the human ear.

What Hillygus and Shields found surprising is that candidates are not using these lists to strategically target their base party voters, as is often thought to be the case. Instead, they are looking to locate voters across the political spectrum who agree with them on these wedge issues.

Candidates are also now increasingly likely to overlook unregistered voters, viewing them as unlikely to vote in the upcoming election. Consequently, entire segments of the population are ignored, Hillygus says, creating a cycle wherein unregistered voters are ignored by the campaign dialogue, and therefore continue not to vote.

Hillygus and Shields conducted surveys of voters, interviewed campaign consultants, and collected political direct mail sent by the candidates and parties in the last three weeks of the campaign. They found that the Bush and Kerry campaigns talked about 75 different issues in their direct mail.

Additionally, the messages contained in direct mail pieces were often very different from those included in a television advertisement. Candidates often take positions and make statements in direct mail that they would be never express on television, explains Hillygus: Since television reaches a broad audience, it is not possible to target individual viewers and candidates must be careful to communicate broad messages.

The fragmentation of dialogue about issues also has consequences once a candidate is elected to office. By emphasizing different priority issues to different voters, it becomes a challenge to understand the issues upon which the candidate was elected, and a candidate does not receive a clear mandate from voters with regard to governance.

“As a result of this microtargeting, we aren’t hearing cohesive priorities from the candidate, or subsequently receiving a clear message about the wants and needs of voters,” Hillygus says. “Many people are hearing varying issue priorities from the candidates, and that is changing the tenor of the campaign dialogue.”

Source: Harvard University

Related stories:

New Study Shows Government Accommodates Rich and Poor Alike
(PhysOrg.com) -- The election year is in full swing, complete with allegations of class warfare and claims about which candidates cater to the rich and which candidates will best serve the interests of the poor and the middle class. But a new study, co-authored by North Carolina State University researcher Dr. Chris Ellis, explores the idea that Congress and the White House act on behalf of the wealthy – and shows that it would be impossible to cater solely to any socioeconomic group, because people's preferences tend to be overwhelmingly similar when it comes to how the federal government should spend its money.
This is your brain on politics
U.S. presidential candidates have been stumping for nearly two years with their every move being analyzed and reported ad nauseum. Logically, voters should be able to tap into lots of information when they make their decisions come November. But it turns out there's a lot more going on when we step behind the curtain to cast our ballot.
4 in 10 voters don't see either Obama or McCain health-care plan as better for them
As part of the ongoing poll series, Debating Health: Election 2008, the Harvard Public Opinion Research Program at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Harris Interactive® conducted a new survey focused on how voters think the presidential candidates' health care reform plans would affect them personally – rather than how they think the plans would affect the nation as a whole. The survey found that voters view the candidates' plans differently from this perspective. Four in ten registered voters don't believe one candidate's health care plan would be better for them than the other. (This includes those who think there wouldn't be a difference for them between the plans (27%) and those who don't know if there would be (13%)). More voters think Senator Barack Obama's plan would be better for them than Senator John McCain's plan (33% vs. 27%). This survey was conducted September 17-21, 2008, by telephone among a national cross section of 935 registered voters in the United States.
MySpace to connect users with US presidential debates
MySpace will stream Friday's debate between US presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain live online in an Internet first and provide software tools letting people see which candidate is in tune with their views.
Why we vote the way we do
(PhysOrg.com) -- So you're standing in the election booth. You look at the names in front of you: McCain and Obama. Chances are, by now you know who you're going to vote for. But what went into that decision?
Study: Fake news shows less important in learning about politics
A new study suggests that entertainment news shows such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report may not be as influential in teaching voters about political issues and candidates as was previously thought.
New consumer research shows that Obama stands to gain from 'Hillary effect'
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton may do more for U.S. Senator Barack Obama than Ralph Nader did for Al Gore: she could give him an unintended boost. Clinton sought the presidency and then, unlike Nader, exited the race. New research from the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management demonstrates that when an option enters and then leaves a market, the most similar remaining option -- in this case Obama -- stands to benefit. Whether it is political candidates or beer, health care plans or automobiles, when one attractive option becomes unavailable, people gravitate toward the most similar remaining option.
Extreme appeal: voters trust extreme positions more than moderate ones, study finds
Trying to appear moderate is not always the best strategy for capturing votes during an election, reveals a new study. Extreme positions can build trust among an electorate, who value ideological commitment in times of uncertainty.

News discussion:

General Science news