Matthew Yglesias » Politics 101: Criticizing Your Opponent Makes Her Less Popular

Sep 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Politics 101: Criticizing Your Opponent Makes Her Less Popular

In the wake of Sarah Palin’s nomination, a surprising number of people — some of whom weren’t even operating in bad faith — suggested that the smart thing to do when faced with a popular political opponent would be to avoid attacking her, lest the attacks cause a backlash. Looking at the Research 2000 tracking poll data, however, confirms common sense — when you attack someone, she becomes less popular:

That’s her net favorable rating over time.

Comments
80

80 Responses to “Politics 101: Criticizing Your Opponent Makes Her Less Popular”

Rob Mac Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Duh.

Sometimes it seems like Democrats think you can’t actually change people’s minds about anything. You have to take what people say they like/dislike at any given moment in time and try to convince them that you agree with them.

Republicans tend to take the opposite approach. Push your line of thinking until people start to agree with you.
Andrew Fly Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Eh, that’s not exactly a causal relationship. The more you find out about someone’s shady underside, the worse he/she looks.

Information is power!
DTM Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Yeah, but our resident Republican hacks, who are very much not operating in good faith, were getting louder and louder in their claims that all the criticism wasn’t working. That was a good sign, of course, that it was.

Anyway, I think it is now more or less settled that Palin isn’t going to be overwhelmingly helpful for McCain, and probably we have slipped into the territory where his pick of Palin can be one small part of an effective case against him. But the election does in fact have to be about McCain, and obviously Obama/Biden get that, as they are now more or less exclusively talking about him and not Palin.
Chris Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
We’re talking about you Big Tent Democrat
Martin Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Wait, you’ve established the downward slope, but you didn’t establish the existence of attacks. I thought that the Obama campaign was particularly scrupulous about not attacking her, and you said yourself that plenty of people not connected with the campaign were urging restraint. Isn’t it possible that it was these people whose thesis was proven correct?
Marshall Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Sloppy social science. Without data on whether respondents were exposed to negative coverage, and whether they have internalized it, this is a gargantually fallacious inference.
Petr Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
==Andrew Fly. What he said.

Eh, that’s not exactly a causal relationship. The more you find out about someone’s shady underside, the worse he/she looks.

Information is power!

It’s not like we have pre convention numbers on Palin. She vaulted from obscurity to national prominence in one swell foop and didn’t drool the whole time… Any ‘favorables’ might simply derive from good ole fashioned American benefit of the doubt…
MattF Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The null hypothesis here is that the decline is due to chance. I don’t think so.
Craig Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Two things are helping this. One is the relentless attack of Democrats in blogs, in papers, and on TV who have been skewering her record. The second thing is the absolute absence of Palin in media outlets defending her record. So people come to the conclusion that it is all true, because if people were lying about her record, wouldn’t she hop on Hardball or the Today Show or something and refute the charges? This is a case where the GOP sequestering Palin is actually hurting her (or maybe it is hurting her less - maybe having her defend herself on national TV would hurt her even more). Ultimately, this just seems natural - Palin really IS unqualified to be VP, and there’s no way to hide that fact, especially not with 50 days to go in a highly publicized national election.
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“In the wake of Sarah Palin’s nomination, a surprising number of people — some of whom weren’t even operating in bad faith — suggested that the smart thing to do when faced with a popular political opponent would be to avoid attacking her, lest the attacks cause a backlash.”

There are innumerable reasons why attacking Palin over the past 3 weeks has been a pretty fundamental mistake.

- Driving up Palin’s negatives doesn’t help win the election for Democrats in any way, shape, or form.

- Palin’s numbers would have leveled off in the absence of the attacks, as Democratic leaning partisans would have decided they didn’t like her because she’s running against them.

- The nature of the attacks has reinforced some of the “arugula” storylines that are keeping McCain in the game in a year that he shouldn’t be in the game.

Folks might want to check what Agnew’s and Quayle’s numbers looked like in ‘68 and ‘88. The Dems attacked both of them, drove up their negatives, and were strategically wrong to do so in both cases. Similarly, the Palin attacks have been a fiasco for the Obama campaign effort, no matter what they do to Palin’s numbers.

However, the Palin attacks are good for one group of folks: those who are writing for an upscale Democratic audience, say Andrew Sullivan or Matthew Yglesias. Palin attacks get traffic for those folks, no matter what they do for the election of the candidate they are supporting.
El Cid Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
OMG! What will Democrats do if they have less dry powder?
jibeaux Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
She has the staying power of cotton candy without the yumminess. Mmmm….state fair next month…maple flavored cotton candy….seriously, that stuff is WAY better than the pink.
Mixner Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Looking at the Research 2000 tracking poll data, however, confirms common sense — when you attack someone, she becomes less popular:

Since the same source purports to show that Obama’s popularity has increased over the same period, I guess this must mean that Obama hasn’t been attacked.
J.W. Hamner Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Yeah, where is the evidence of tons of attacks on Sarah Palin delivered by Dems?

It seems to me, this just shows that once as the New Canditate Smell has worn off, people are realizing how terribly unqualified she is… without the Obama campaign really having to life a finger.
Jeffrey Davis Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I think some Republican movers-and-shakers thought long enough about “President Palin” to come to the conclusion that satisfying John McCain’s vanity just wasn’t worth the risk. At that point, various Republican Bigs started to make fairly well-reported, sniping remarks about the ticket and its tactics and that created enough unease about Palin (and McCain) that the public took time to look closer. I don’t think the media was going to do anything until their bosses gave their tacit approval.
Petr Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I wonder how much the perception of ‘liberal bias’ is at play here? Specifically, how much of the facts coming out is perceived (or even played up as) ‘criticism’ and ‘attacks’? The facts, after all, have a well known liberal bias…

So, Yglesias, your assumptions about her favorables, her unfavorables and the ‘criticisms’ are all under attack here…
Jake Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
You should have subtitled this post “Why Petey’s an Idiot”
Rob Mac Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I think those who are asking for proof of cause and effect here are missing the point.

A lot of Republican talkers and reflexive defensive crouch Democrats have been crying about how “Palin derangement syndrome” was going to boomerang on Democrats because, gosh darn it, people looove them that Sarah Palin.

In fact Democrats and the Obama campaign have largely left Palin alone, but pundits, bloggers, media figures, and reporters have torn her up. At the end of 10 days it turns out that Americans don’t actually like her so much after all. She’s a political figure like any other, not baby Jesus and Santa Claus and the Virgin Mary wrapped into one package.

Personally, I am thoroughly sick of Sarah Palin. I hope never to hear anything about her, positive or negative, for as long as I live. Not that that’s likely to happen . . .

And Petey, what do you care about what the Obama campaign does? You’ve said that this is the most inconsequential election in modern history or some such thing. You don’t care who wins, right? So spare us your “concern”.
psmith Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Uh, whuh?

Maybe it was the attacks, maybe it was actual information coming out about her, or maybe it was simply the blush of excitement dissipating a bit. Or maybe all three. Or maybe none of the above. We don’t really know, and this chart doesn’t ‘prove’ any particular cause (besides the one you happen to have in mind while viewing it).
Andrew Fly Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Also, by the title of the post, is Matt intending that this only works on female candidates?? It would be interesting to see if there is a relationship between initial favorables and it’s incline/decline and if it’s different for male and female candidates
E. O'Neal Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Now even the hockey moms are turning against Sarah. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URIypadX3n0
Seitz Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
You should have subtitled this post “Why Petey’s an Idiot”

If he did that, he’d have to do it for every third post or so, and this site would get very confusing. Besides, there are so many reasons Petey’s an idiot, it’s almost unfair to limit it to this one reason.
Dialectic of Entitlement Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
The real story of this chart: when Palin came onto the scene, part of the big splash was that she was a young, attractive injection of fresh blood. If you look at the bottom of the chart, you’ll see that her approval rating dips as you move forward in time. The only logical hypothesis: she’s only gotten older since her selection and introduction (she’s essentially become a grandmother), and the nation doesn’t approve of watching a woman age before their eyes.
msw Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Mrs. Moose will be on L King tonight with McCain at her side.
Also, Obama is now back on top in Gallup daily tracking polls.
Brent Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
There is something to the idea that attacking someone you’re not running against doesn’t much help Obama, though the whole “backfire” idea always seemed silly to me. But the critical connection that should be made is to criticize Palin insofar as she’s a result of McCain’s judgement/character/decision-making/whatever. But to do that of course you have to point out why she’s a bad pick. And to point out why she’s a bad pick you, of course, have to critize HER. The alternative would be to rely on the media to point out or not point out Palin’s flaws (never good to outsource a job like this anyway, but a media ultra-frightened of “elitist, liberal bias” claims is surely not your best friend). Meanwhile, you run the risk of not pointing out the erroneous Bridge to Nowhere claims, the erroneous Alskan oil claims, etc.

I have to believe a lot of Palin-caution warnings came out of a conflation of “negative” with “smearing” and “lieing” and “Swiftboating.” These are not the same things. Going negative doesn’t backfire in a way that smearing potentially can. And Hell, have Republicans really been punished electorally for smearing in the past anyway?
matt Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Um, didn’t the first interview with Gibson come out on 9/11? I don’t imagine that her own bone-headed answers had anything to do with this decline, did it?
mpowell Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I don’t think that attacking someone will always drive up their negatives. But when you introduce a completely unknown on the national stage like the Republicans did with Palin, the initial public response is going to be malleable. First impressions mean a lot, but they’re certainly not everything. Especially when so many of the attacks on Palin are grounded in legitimate complaints. This is an area where distinguishing between negative attacks and negative smears can be helpful. (of course smears can also be effective, but you are playing with fire; if you are perceived as smearing your opponent that can backlash)
Bragan Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
If he did that, he’d have to do it for every third post or so, and this site would get very confusing. Besides, there are so many reasons Petey’s an idiot, it’s almost unfair to limit it to this one reason.

Seitz shoots . . . he scores! /Palin as sportscaster accent
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
“And Petey, what do you care about what the Obama campaign does? … You don’t care who wins, right?”

No. I’ve said it’s an election of unusually low consequentiality, which is different from an election of zero consequentiality. I think an Obama administration is going to be a mess for Democrats generally, and a real clusterfuck for the left. But all things considered, I think an Obama administration and the ensuing fallout is still probably better than the alternative, though it’s not an open and shut case the way it is most Presidential years.

I’m voting Obama, and have sent him money. Hence I must care who wins to some extent.

And believe it or not, I’d still have (mostly correct) opinions about the electoral efficacy of various strategies even if I did think the election in question had zero consequentiality.
peep Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
The only logical hypothesis: she’s only gotten older since her selection and introduction (she’s essentially become a grandmother), and the nation doesn’t approve of watching a woman age before their eyes.

Dialectic of Entitlement wins the thread!
Lon Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Matt (the commenter rather than the Yglesias) seems to have noted the key fact. The decline above is not keyed to any surge in attacks on Palin. It coincides with people seeing her try to answer questions.

Contra someone above, the null hypothesis is that the more people find out about Palin the less they are likely to be impressed (save a core group of Evangelicals that were never going to turn on Harriet Miers either).
peep Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
And believe it or not, I’d still have (mostly correct) opinions about the electoral efficacy of various strategies even if I did think the election in question had zero consequentiality.

Congratulations, Petey! This is the most modest thing I can remember you ever having written. You acknowledged the possibility that you could be wrong! Your therapist is making real progress!
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“There is something to the idea that attacking someone you’re not running against doesn’t much help Obama, though the whole “backfire” idea always seemed silly to me.”

For about two weeks, the national conversation was all about Palin. During that time period, McCain leapt up in the polls. Over the past week, the national conversation has been about other things, and Obama has crept back up the polls.

Coincidence? I’d say no.

You win elections not by winning arguments, but instead by picking what topics the arguments are about. Palin was never a particularly good argument for us. That’s why trying to win that particular argument was counterproductive.
Led Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Petey’s right that Palin’s numbers don’t really matter that much. The “Palin bounce” was just the typical convention bounce. As for her favorables, it was inevtiable that they would go down as people learned more about her. We’ll now settle into a post-convention equilibrium where Obama leads in national polls by a few percentage points. The state polls will catch up and soon Obama’s EC advantage will return. Barring something crazy happening in the next 6 weeks, that’s the way it will look on Nov 2. The question is whether the Obama ground game will get enough of their new voters actually into the booth on Nov 3 for more than a couple point win or whether that’s just hype.
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“Congratulations, Petey! This is the most modest thing I can remember you ever having written. You acknowledged the possibility that you could be wrong!”

It’s true. My correctness rate on electoral politics only runs at around 80%. I express my regrets for the other fifth.
EarBucket Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
My hypothesis is that the people who like her decided they liked her at first sight. The people who were undecided have been forming their opinions, and those opinions have been overwhelming negative, driving down her net favorables.
Brian Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
My correctness rate on electoral politics only runs at around 80%

I literally fell backwards in my chair after reading that!
Mitch Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Can we call this trend the “Tina Fey Effect”? I think a six minute SNL sketch did more to deflate Palin than two weeks of sustained attacks ever could.
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“I literally fell backwards in my chair after reading that!”

I also express my regrets for any injuries caused by my general correctness on matters of electoral politics.

My intent is to inform, not cause herniated discs.
24AheadDotCom Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Yet another MattY post along these lines where he fails to acknowledge that many of the “attacks” were simply lies.

That includes Chuckie Gibson lying about one of her quotes, AnneKornblut launching a smear after tipping her hand (24ahead.com/blog/archives/007986.html), and yet another lie from the WaPo. That latter is one that MattY helped the WaPo spread.

In fact, MattY has still not corrected his post on that, even after ThinkProgress itself has tacked a small update onto their corresponding smear. Compare the update here:

thinkprogress.org/2008/09/03/palin-mccain-mothers

To the lack of an update here:

yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/
life_begins_at_conception_and_ends_at_death.php
Trevor Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Letterman: “Are you ready to be President, Governor Palin?”

“Fer sure!!” (a mocking rendition of Palin’s village idiot nasal twang

In the wake of the ABC Gibson interview - the ridicule is working. Lay it on thicker and thicker and thicker and Obama-Biden will skate in. Everyone ought to pitch in. sure, you have to go against McCain. He’s too old, too senile, a pathological liar. a phony “war hero”, a prickly, unstable Manchurian candidate, an incompetent, a neocon stooge, a warmongering fool, the anti-Reagan (doesn’t know when NOT to start wars), a parasitic apendage to George Bush and Joe Lieberman. But, ridicule IS the best Deliverance.
piotr Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Mixner very astutely noticed that Palin was not the only politician attacked in the recent days. In particular, a presidential candidate was attacked for a number of things, including turning our pre-teens into dissolute sluts by subjecting them to explicit sexual education.

mpowell even more astutely noticed that the public changes its mind more if it knows less. It is hard to change mind very much about McCain or Obama. Moreover, the positives of Palin were unusually vaporous (”the breath of fresh air”?).

Should campaigns “attack”, or do anything at all for that matter? The normal answer is that doing something usually beats doing nothing, but doing something badly does not.

To me, Palin’s is a pretty awful person, whose best feature is lack of imagination when the corruption is concerned (50 dollars per night for eating in your own home? a tanning bed? it really reminds me SNL skid “redneck tanning salon”. A person of larger acumen would get hold of some lucrative investments, corporate gigs for family and friends
peep Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
My correctness rate on electoral politics only runs at around 80%

So where does your vociferous support for John Edwards fit in this scheme? Have you written that off as part of the 20% of the time that you are wrong?
Brent Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
For about two weeks, the national conversation was all about Palin. During that time period, McCain leapt up in the polls. Over the past week, the national conversation has been about other things, and Obama has crept back up the polls.

That has little to do with Palin’s favorable/unfavorable spread.
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“So where does your vociferous support for John Edwards fit in this scheme? Have you written that off as part of the 20% of the time that you are wrong?”

Advocacy ≠ Prediction.

I never claimed Edwards as the favorite for the nomination, and repeatedly said he had an uphill climb.
MBunge Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
What Petey misses in his “Leave Sara Alone!” spiel is that Governor Palin is and will continue to launch broadsides at Obama, Biden and Democrats in general. The idea that a campaign should let one of the 4 most famous people in American politics spend just over 2 months attacking them, without taking the fight back to her, is just insane.

Mikew
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“That has little to do with Palin’s favorable/unfavorable spread.”

My point is that Palin’s favorable/unfavorable spread has little to do with that.

The cost of picking a fight to move Palin’s numbers was moving the election numbers away from us. We won the argument, but as stated, winning elections is all about correctly picking the topics of the arguments.
too many steves Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I take it as a solid fact that everybody exaggerates their success rate in gambling. In Petey’s case, I’d be slightly surprised if he even bets on politics at all. Maybe that’s an unfair thing to say, it’s just a hunch. I’m absolutely confident that 80% success is bullshit. If Petey really gambles as much as Petey says he does, and Petey is right 80 percent of the time, then he’s way too rich to be sitting at his crappy job wasting his time posting on this blog like the rest of us.
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“What Petey misses in his “Leave Sara Alone!” spiel is that Governor Palin is and will continue to launch broadsides at Obama, Biden and Democrats in general. The idea that a campaign should let one of the 4 most famous people in American politics spend just over 2 months attacking them, without taking the fight back to her, is just insane.”

Two points:

1) How much do you see the GOP attacking Biden? He’s been attacking the GOP, y’know…

2) I’m not saying we should have totally left Palin alone. I’m just saying we shouldn’t have seen the first two weeks of her rollout as an armageddon like battle to define her. The proper play would have been to let them do the rollout, not help build the frenzy by participating, and then start taking some selective shots around now. Her fav/unfav numbers would be about the same now as they actually are, and we wouldn’t have suffered the topline weakening that we did over those two weeks.
MBunge Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“The cost of picking a fight to move Palin’s numbers was moving the election numbers away from us.”

So, you’re saying that if nobody had said anything bad about Sarah Palin…McCain would have never surged ahead of Obama in the polls? Really? You’re that disconnected from political reality?

Mike
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“If Petey really gambles as much as Petey says he does, and Petey is right 80 percent of the time, then he’s way too rich to be … wasting his time posting on this blog like the rest of us.”

What can I say. I like to give back to the community.

After you get rich, what’s left other than philanthropy? (Well, other than hookers, blow, and philanthropy…)
MBunge Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
“1) How much do you see the GOP attacking Biden? He’s been attacking the GOP, y’know…

2) I’m not saying we should have totally left Palin alone. I’m just saying we shouldn’t have seen the first two weeks of her rollout as an armageddon like battle to define her. The proper play would have been to let them do the rollout, not help build the frenzy by participating, and then start taking some selective shots around now. Her fav/unfav numbers would be about the same now as they actually are, and we wouldn’t have suffered the topline weakening that we did over those two weeks.”

1. The GOP aren’t attacking Biden because he’s not the one electrifying supporters and bringing in huge amounts of cash to the campaign. Palin is doing those things for McCain.

2. I didn’t know you could peer into alternate time lines in order to know how things would have gone if Palin hadn’t been attacked. That’s a hell of a talent you got there, Nostradumbass.

Mike
Mistyed Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Interesting.
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
“So, you’re saying that if nobody had said anything bad about Sarah Palin…McCain would have never surged ahead of Obama in the polls?”

I’m saying that if Team Obama had properly played the Palin phenomenon, which they didn’t, then McCain’s position in the polls right now would be significantly worse than it is.
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“I didn’t know you could peer into alternate time lines in order to know how things would have gone if Palin hadn’t been attacked.”

Well, now you know.

FWIW, here I am making the argument in realtime…
toby Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
In a way, the Republicans shot themselves in the foot on this one.

Backing Palin was a big risk, but they hedged their bets by trying to keep her in a protective cocoon. She has not done a single press conference. The “respect and deference” thing stuck in the craw. The media got p*ssed off, and went after her record.

The pre-emptive attacks on Obama for “lying” about her only played into his hands. They were so obviously scurrilous that a usually submissive media had to take notice.

Also, Palin was given a mission way to big for someone so lightweight. She could not possibly fulfil the inflated expectations laid on her by the GOP after her convention speech. Has any speech of hers said anything particularly memorable since then? Her interviews were mediocre TV, and surely lit no fires in GOP-land.

Like McCain’s bounce, since the convention she has just fallen flat.

So the Dems did (maybe accidentally) exectly what you should do when your enemy is screwing up - nothing!
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“So the Dems did (maybe accidentally) exectly what you should do when your enemy is screwing up - nothing!”

I think you are missing the point of Matt’s post…
MBunge Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
“I’m saying that if Team Obama had properly played the Palin phenomenon, which they didn’t, then McCain’s position in the polls right now would be significantly worse than it is.”

Petey, how can you only be right 80% of electoral politics? I mean, if you’re just going to ignore actual evidence and logical reasoning and judge everything against your own deluded fantasies and guesses about what might have happened…how come you’re not right 100% of the time?

Pronoucing the make-believe scenario in you tiny brain as more dispositive than actual reality is bold new territory, even for you.

Mike
MBunge Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Oh, and another little factor left out of Petey’s dellusions of omniscience is…what would have been the effect on Democrats and Obama supporters if they’d had to watch Sarah Palin being paraded all over TV and across the country for days or weeks without people saying negative things about her?

Mike
Petey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“Petey, how can you only be right 80% of electoral politics?”

I’m only human, MBunge. I’m only human.

Even Kobe Bryant only hits about 80% of his free throws.
MBunge Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I’ll admit it. I laughed at that.

Mike
mad6798j Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Petey also thought Obama wasn’t really running for president during the primaries, he was running for vice president…

I don’t understand his point in this thread though. Obama and his campaign haven’t really attacked Palin at all so far. Have there been anti-Palin speeches and ads that I’ve missed? It’s the press that’s been going after Palin, not Obama.
Adam Villani Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Maple cotton candy? Dude, what state do you live in, and when is the state fair?
Chris Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
The fall in popularity of Sarah Palin can be attributed to exactly one thing: Sarah Palin.
DTM Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I don’t see the causal question as an either/or. Palin was of course destined for some sort of pullback in favorability, but this is a very quick and very dramatic pullback. I think the most reasonable hypothesis is that happened as the combined result of the McCain campaign’s illconceived sequestering of Palin, the exposure of her lack of understanding of national policy issues, and, yes, some ridicule.

By the way, why does anyone pay any attention to Petey? Since the Iowa Caucus, he has pretty much been a not-very-funny jester.
Whitey Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Y’all gotta stop messing with the trolls.
blanco Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 9:04 am
correlation is not causation
charlotte Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Thank you, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler! For sure.
Monument Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Commentors are correct that the Obama campaign didn’t attack Palin, except for the very first knee-jerk, campaign-aid-drafted press release which was almost immediately reputed and replaced. And the PACs didn’t hit her either, except the low-funded wildlife ad about her wolf slaughtering policy.

However, the leftie side of the internet did jump into the research on this unknown candidate, as did the mainstream press and the tabloids. And, as they found (and as I predicted when I first viewed her Wiki page) she was totally unprepared for the limelight. Fertile ground for all kinds of issues, plus she has a long list of enemies in her rear view mirror and in Juneau and Anchorage who were happy to spill the goods on her.

So, I *suspect* that Obama — per his m.o. — kept calm and simply collected data for the first few days. Once he assessed the situation all his team did was to gently, under the radar, push the press to dig and to report. The same as they did about McCain’s serial lies — just keep reminding the press that their job is to get these issues out in front of the people.

Now, if Palin had been a stronger candidate Obama might have had to go on the attack — but Obama’s team understands that the CW in a campaign can turn 180 degrees in a span of 24 hours, so once they realized they didn’t need to attack they simply took the “families are off limits” high road and let the press do their job.
Neil B Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I think #2 is on the ball: it isn’t “being criticized” per se that matters enough, a lot is whether there’s something negative there worth criticizing (unless the critics can be really effective in a BS campaign, which they often are. In this case of McCain’s Playlinmate, the moose jerky looks to be real meat.)

PS: monumnet at #69, I guess that Wiki page is still in the archive since the later versions were “scrubbed” of negative material, right?
frank logan Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I think Sarah was her own worse enemy–abetted by her speech writers. People laughed during her first speeches but the words and tone lingered on. Her tone, her voice, her scorn have not worn well. Criticism helped, maybe, but wasn’t needed. Fortunately the attention of the nation has turned to the presidential candidates where it belongs.
Eric in AK Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 12:20 am
The Alaska perspective: I was a huge Palin fan until a few months ago, when she trotted out a misbegotten “energy relief” payment plan that would have given Alaskans a $100/month recharge on a state-issued “debit card” they could use to pay for fuel and utilities. She substituted a “resource rebate” which, during a special legislative session, passed after rancorous debate, giving each Alaskan a $1,200 one-time payment on top of the Permanent Fund Dividend. We each will receive $3,269 this year when you add the two.
But, my opposition to her wasn’t based solely on that $750 million waste of funds. It was the developments of the “troopergate” affair that revealed her for the debased hypocrite that she is. No need to rehash, of course, but I’d recommend anyone who’s interested in seeing her for what she is visit the andrewhalcro.com blog or the alaskapoliticsblog.blogspot.com/ blog for starters and follow the saga on the adn.com web site for the Anchorage Daily News. She’s worse than her predecessor in several key ways, but mostly in terms of her adamant and blatant lies and failure of morals.
I’m still in the minority in Alaska, but it’s a minority that has every reason to feel as it does on an objective level.
cialis Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 10:30 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
zyban Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:52 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
x0fa7d1 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 am
tramadol
I want to say - thank you for this!
cheap viagra Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 3:22 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
viagra cheap Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive!
viagra
mark Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra

Matt Yglesias

Politics 101: Criticizing Your Opponent Makes Her Less Popular

80 Responses to “Politics 101: Criticizing Your Opponent Makes Her Less Popular”

Blogroll