media.laits.utexas.edu:8080/.../gov310_topic13.1.mp4

Let's start with the first topic, what
are campaigns like in the United States?

All right. I'm gonna give you a set of
characteristics that are associated with

contemporary campaigns.

By contemporary, I'd say, let's, let's
talk about the television age. So let's

talk about the 1950s through the present
times. So roughly, you know, 65 year if

we pick an arbitrary date of 1950s is
our kick off point. So what are modern

campaigns in the United States like?

Well, the first characteristic and you
probably anticipated this is that they're

expensive. Right? So, I've got a bar graph
here, which indicates the cost or I

should say, the amount of money spent in
US elections running from 1998 all the

way through 2012. And I've got presidential
years distinguished from just a

congressional election year.

So the years 98, 02, 06, etc. Those
are years in which we only have

congressional races at the federal level.
And then in the other years, 2000,04,

08 and 12, we have congressional elections,
but also presidential. So, on those

years, the bar graph will indicate the
combined cost of congressional and then

presidential races.

So you see why the, you know, the bars
with some green reflects the additional

spending that you see in the presidential
contest. So, in our most recent

presidential election, 2012, you see an
excess. Well, an excess of $6 billion

spent on campaigns in the United States.
And you also see the trend over time,

which is an increase trend.

Both if your just
looking at those

congressional races, right?
So, about one and

a half billion in 1998. And the last data
for which last year for which we have

good data is 2010 almost 3 and a half
billion. So you see the increase there in

presidential years, you see the increase
from a little over 3 billion in 2000 to

over 6 billion.

In 2012, so that's quite a bit of money
obviously. All right, now I do want to

emphasize, this is something that people
who study campaigns will always say

though. Even thought campaigns in the
United States are expensive, we spend a

lot of, dollars trying to reach people,
convince them to vote, persuade them for

whom to vote.

But, this sort of money figure, the billion
dollars say in 1998, or even the six

billion last time, is dwarfed in
comparison to the amount of money spent

advertising commercial products in the
United States. So, for instance, the

example we use in political
science a lot is toothpaste.

There's actually quite a bit more money
spent on advertising in toothpaste, and

for toothpaste sales, and products than
there is in federal election campaigns

in the United States. Now, you know,
there's probably good reason for that. I

can't really tell the difference between
Aim, and Crest, and Colgate, and those

different toothpastes, and so they spend
a lot of money trying to convince you

there actually is a difference.

All right, some people say that's kinda
comparable to what we do in campaigns,

where they're trying to
convince you there's

a difference between,
you know, Ted

Cruz versus Rand Paul versus, you know,
Jeb Bush. But, you get the point.

Although campaigns are very expensive in
the United States, they really aren't

expensive compared to commercial campaigns.

Okay, so, and you could, so compared to
other countries, compared to money we

spent in the past, they're expensive.
But, there is a reason to think that, you

know, since we are electing our leaders,
maybe it's not so, you know, horrific

that we spend $6 billion Having them
communicate messages, and speaking to the

American public, okay?

Again, I'm not taking a side. I just wanna
make sure that both perspectives, you

know, they're really expensive versus
hey, maybe they don't even spend enough.

Both of those sides could be entertained,
I think. Now, in addition to being

expensive. They're long. And,
I have got a couple quotes.

As I go through some of these different
characteristics, I'll try to offer some

examples of why it is, or, you know, kind
of provide some, real time evidence on

why it is we think the characteristics
apply. So they are lengthy. They're long.

But I have got a little, blurb here from,
November 11th of 2013, so a couple of

years ago.

But, well in advance, obviously, of the
2016 presidential election. Right? Three

years before the 2016 presidential
election, you saw Chris Christie quiet on

2016 presidential race during Sunday media
blitz. All right, so Chris Christie

went, who had, you know, been re-elected
governor of New Jersey a week before

was on this week, was on Fox News Sunday,
was on Meet the Press, all these

shows, sort of just talking about things.

Not necessarily saying he was interested
in running for president, but but

certainly testing the waters. Again,
three years in advance, you know, before

the 2014 midterms, even a year before the
2014 midterms. And three years before

the US presidential in 2016, Christie's
out there testing the waters. That is a

characteristic of contemporary pre-,
campaigns in the United States.

They last forever. You know, as soon as
2014 was over, the 2016 race began. At

the Presidential level, certainly, you
know, by 2013 the main characters were

already kinda setting up exploratory
ide-, committee structures, we're

announcing but we're
setting up the

structures. Looking at
people who might help

them run.

All right. They're also, and I'm gonna
use kind of a classic economic terms

campaigns are instrumental. Instrumental
here, I'd say borrowing from economics,

we're thinking about kind of rational
choice theory, in which when I say

instrumental, I mean that they are logical,
they're strategic, they are looking

to achieve an end.

And, that end is winning the election.
So, campaigns are instrumental in the

sense that they're trying to figure out
how best to win the election. Maybe, you

know, perhaps the easiest way to bring
this concept to life is to say, you know,

to consider the use of issues in campaigns.

Issues are not necessarily expressions of,
you know, belief about core values in

American politics. In a lot of ways,
issues are tools by which candidates win

elections. Right, now that's a very
instrumental way of thinking about issues,

but that's the way most
political scientists

think campaigns
actually operate.

All right, so here, this is kind of a, a,
an interesting quote from Orrin Hatch,

who's a long time Senator from Utah. Who,
was thinking about, dreaming, as the,

the headline goes here, about a Chris
Christie, Susana Martinez, Susana Martinez

is a Republican Governor of New Mexico,
female, Hispanic, thinking about this as

a dream ticket For Republicans.

And, the quote here, I think that the man
really is exceptionally tough, smart,

good conservative who literally appeals
across, across the board. So, this is

Hatch's description of Christie. Which
is what the Republicans need to have, he

said, referring to Christie. And, let's
face it, Susana Martinez has a lot of

qualities that would help a lot of people
to understand the Republican Party is

a broad base party.

Well, you don't hear him talking about,
really the issues. I mean, he says,

Christie's a good conservative.
He's talking

a ticket being
attractive by virtue

of the characteristics of the candidates.
So, in other words, Hatch here is

almost entirely focused on how to win
the election. And, we think that that's

basically the way American
political campaigns operate.

They wanna win. And so, their primary
concern is how to construct a set of issue

positions, how to, you know, induce
or to recruit candidates who can be

effective at the ballot box, can attract
votes. All right, so they are negative,

they are long, they are instrumental.
By the way, I should point out that

instrumental is a missing
contrast to Europe.

Where you have political parties ,and
in a lot of coun, parties in Latin

America, whose primary goal is to
advance an ideology, or a set of issue

positions. You know, they don't change
their positions to win the election, they

try to convince people to come over. In
American politics, the parties do have

issue positions and ideologies.

But, they're instrumental, they like to
find issue positions that attract people

and help them win elections. The fourth
and final characteristic that I'll

mention, there's clearly others, but I'll
focus on these four, is that campaigns

are negative in the United States. So,
for instance, following up on this Chris

Christie kind of doing a little bit
of an exploration run in 2013.

Simultaneous to that, you had Democrats
begin effort to negatively define Chris

Christie before 2016. All right. So, and
again, just a little blurb here from

the Washington Post. After Christie won
re-election in November of 2013, in New

Jersey, the Democrats were already out
there attacking him. Talking about how,

well, you know, he's actually got all
these problems in New Jersey, New Jer.

His record in New Jersey isn't very strong,
he's you know, not an accommodation,

he's not a compromised guy. He's a hard
edge conservative. So this kind of

negativity is something that's clearly
endemic to American campaigns let me go

to some data for that. Now, it's easy
to say American campaigns are negative.

But, let's actually kind of put that in
some perspective. So, I've got some data

here. As you see in the bar graph from
the Wesleyan Media Project. This use to

be run out of Wisconsin. They've moved
it around a few times. All right, but

they've actually, they code every U.S.
Senate, U.S. House and presidential

campaign ad.

Bless you, Professor McDaniel.

>> Sorry about that. Thank you.

>> It's all right. It's a, it's
a good contribution. Okay.

>> So, so here we've got data from 2004,
2008 and 2012, and you've got it broken

down by the parties' candidates. So,
Bush and Kerry, McCain and Obama, Romney

and Obama.

And, they've got the percentage of
television advertisements on broadcast and

cable that are positive, that is, they
were coded positively, that were coded as

contrast ads, right? That is, you know,
President Obama does this, Mitt Romney

does this, right? That's a contrast ad,
where you're contrasting the position of

one candidate versus the other,
and then negative ads, all right?

And so, you see this difference over time.
So, take a look at 2004. 72% of

George W Bush's ads were coded as negative,
44% of John Kerry's ads. In 2008, 76

of McCain's, 76% of McCain's ads, 63%
of Obama's ads were negative. And, in

2012, and this wasn't through the end of
the election, they didn't, release, for

public consumption their numbers through,
but this is through October 21st, so

it's pretty much comprehensive.

79% of Romney's ads were negative, 86%,
rounding up for, of Obama's ads were

negative. All right, so you see across
these election cycles, the only candidate

who comes across as, you know, even close
to being a net positive is John Kerry

in 2004. All right. And a lot of those
positive ads were because Kerry had to

define himself.

So these were ads talking about who he
was, and what he represented, and things

like that. You do tend to find that
incumbents, who are better known, are more

likely to air positive they're more
likely to air negative ads, going after

their opponents. All right. The reason for
that is, for instance, Obama in 2012,

85, 86% of his ads are negative.

Well why is that? Well Obama doesn't
need to tell you who he is, or what he's

about, or even what issue positions. All
right? He's a well known commodity. And

why spend a billion dollars of his money
telling us, you know, something that we

can judge for ourselves, in large part.

So there's an incentive structure for
incumbents, who are well known and who've

been around a while, to spend their time
defining a relatively unknown opponent.

Which is what Obama did in 2012. Most of
his fire was aimed at Romney, defining

Romney in a negative way. That's also
I, I think it, evident in the data from

2004, where you see George W.

Bush's numbers are relatively negative.
People knew who Bush was. And that, you,

you know, Bush wasn't gonna spend a lot
of time convincing people how he was

doing, or whether he was, you know, a good
guy or a bad guy, or a good president

or a bad president.

Kerry was unknown, Bush wanted to help
define Kerry. All right. So this is some

data, you know, talking about these
different sorts of advertisements. But I

want to make the general point that
campaigns, in the American context, tend to

be fairly negative. All right. And as an
example of this, I just go the thumbs

up from Brandan so, we pulled something
from last week, had a little trouble in

the dry run this morning,
hopefully this will work for you.

Some example of, of negative campaigning,
in the context of 2016. So we go to

that video.

>> What path will America take? Will
it be a path to the past? A road to

yesterday, to a place we've been to before?
Hillary Clinton represents the worst

of the Washington machine.

The arrogance of power, corruption and
cover up. Conflicts of interest, and

failed leadership. With--

[silence]

What path will America take?
Will it be a path to the

past? A road to yesterday, to a place
we've been to before? Hillary Clinton

represents the worst of the Washington
machine. The arrogance of power,

corruption and coverup.

Conflicts of interest and failed
leadership, with tragic consequences. The

Washington machine is destroying the
American dream. It's time for a new leader

and a new way. Rand Paul.

>> Please join me in welcoming
Hillary Rodham Clinton.

>> Hillary Clinton has
some explaining to do.

>> Used her personal email account
to conduct official business.

>> Wanted to reset relations with Russia.

>> Not really working out well.

>> Potentially catastrophic
move for For Hillary Clinton.

>> Taking millions of dollars
from foreign governments.

>> Landing under sniper fire, it
was a total crock, it was a lie.

>> What difference, at
this point, does it make?

>> This is just par for the course for the
Clintons, they're always a little bit

secretive.

>> The Senate is considering tough new
sanctions on Iran. President Obama says

he'll veto them, and Rand Paul is standing
with him. Rand Paul supports Obama's

negotiations with Iran, and he
doesn't understand the threat.

>> You know, it's ridiculous to think
that they're a threat to our national

security.

>> Rand Paul is wrong and dangerous. Tell
him to stop siding with Obama, because

even one Iranian bomb would be a disaster.

>> President Obama is holding secret talks
with Iran, even as Iran threatens to

wipe Israel off the map.

The Israeli Prime Minister is coming to
Washington, but Obama won't talk to him.

Instead, Obama and anti Israel Democrats
are boycotting him. Israel's friends,

Democrats and Republican, are fighting
back. But where's Hillary Clinton? Does

she support the boycotters, or is
she too afraid to stand up to them?

>> All right. So those ads. The first ad
was an ad put out by Republican part,

the Rand Paul ad against Hillary Clinton.
Okay. So he's already setting his

sights on Hillary Clinton. The second
ad was a Republican Party ad against

Hillary Clinton. Then there was an ad,
I don't even know who put out the ad,

against Rand Paul.

But presumably some anti Rand Paul agency
of some sort. And then the fourth ad,

I just threw in because, you know, four
is better than three I suppose, was put

out by a pro Israel
lobby, attacking Hillary

Clinton. So One of
the difficulties

of being the frontrunner is
that you attract all the fire.

And right now Hillary Clinton is, you
know, obviously the frontrunner on the

Democratic side, is gonna attract the
fire of all the Republican candidates, as

well as people who've got a gripe or
a grievance with Democratic party

leadership right now anyway. So, it begins,
all right? And I don't think that we

need a whole lot of evidence that American
campaigns are relatively negative.

But you know, if you like it, there's
some evidence of what's going on right

now. I tried to find some positive ads and
actually failed. So this is something

you're gonna have to expect. Now, I, I do
want to make a point, though. You will

hear, from time to time, people talking
about you know, this is the most

negative campaign of all time, you know?

Stop it. Negativity is a, a, a durable,
enduring feature of American campaigns.

It's always been this way. Go back to
1800, and look at the Jefferson-Adams

race. Go to the Jackson races in the 18,
28, 1832. You know, go to the Lincoln

race, 1860, right? The Roosevelt races,
you know, when Roosevelt was running the

New Deal.

These are simply, kind of, the way things
are in American politics. All right?

So my point was that the contemporary
campaign tends to be, you know, expensive,

long, instrumental, and negative. But I
don't want to suggest that negativity is

somehow a new feature, or that it's to,
you know, we blame television for the

negativity.

We've always kind of been that way in
American politics. And I think it actually

has to do with, you know, the power of
negative information. And also the need,

presumably, for incumbents to define
opponents. That's a big reason why there's

a lot of negativity in contemporary
American political advertising.