« Anachronisms | Main | Republican / Conservative - Not the same thing »

January 04, 2005

Anger Points

One of the most fascinating things about the Bush campaign's data usage is the concept of "anger points." Figuring out what it is that ticks off an individual and drives him to vote for George W. Bush. According to press reports these include abortion and tort reform. My guess is that things like gun control/rights are also included and taking a (web)page from Lee Atwater, probably stuff like affirmative action that the Bush campaign isn't comfortable talking about with the press but no doubt stirs passions and was probably effectively used to get votes for W.

It's interesting, this concept. And the more I think about it, the more I think this was the central factor in Bush's re-election. Sure, he ran against a candidate who was similarly polarizing, but being polarizing didn't hurt Clinton, Reagan or Nixon when they challenged either incumbents or the status quo.

The post election polls show that Bush is deeply unpopular, with negatives rising into the 50's less than two months after he was re-elected. And I don't believe it is because Americans "know where he stands", even when they disagree with him. On overall approval Bush was never popular enough to win re-election under historical standards, and on certain issues his disapprove greatly outweighed his approval.

Yet, voters who in years past would have abandoned him stuck with him. And I think the answer is the anger points. Whether it is a Catholic who is disgusted with all of his policies but disgusted more by abortion or an underemployed rural person nonetheless worried about losing his or her gun or a socially liberal upscale pro-choice white woman who's daughter did not get into a state college because of what they perceive as reverse discrimination due to affirmative action, the Bush campaign found ways to antagonize these people into voting for a man they otherwise do not like.

I'm not saying that they had great across the board success, but all they ended up needing to know was what made 50,000 Ohioans tick and they succeeded in that. If you accept my premise, then the endless spotlight given to issues that a majority of Americans do not care about (such as tort reform, partial birth abortion, judicial nominations) makes sense. I might dismiss it as pandering to the base, but for Bush pandering to specific bases got him re-elected.

So -- anger points. Clearly they work. But what are the Democratic ones? I can think of a few, potentially, though I'm not sure they'd have the same punch applied the way the Bush campaign did them. Republican ideology, on an anger level, appeals to the individualistic urge to take on liberal/goverment interests that are attempting to personally harm his or her way of living. Generally, Democratic anger favors more government regulation to improve someone's own quality of life, for sure, but also the quality of life of others.

It's in this context that grassroots politics will be less about getting out the vote and more about getting out the message and helping organized campaigns figure out what the message to get out is. I'm not saying I can figure it out, but I will definitely be giving it a lot of thought. Obviously, most winnings campaigns simply are in the right place at the right time. The events are favorable, the candidate is personally appealing, the other party makes a mistake. The Bush campaign has furthered our understanding of politics by rejecting the notion, from the start, that the best man will win, and going all out even when the odds and history are against you. They made their victory happen, it didn't just come to them.

Posted by Chris at January 4, 2005 01:37 AM

Comments

I agree with your concept of "anger points" and I think they have always played a large part in the campaigning for both parties. Republicans say "They're going to take away your guns!" while Democrats say "They're going to pollute your drinking water!" Republicans say "They're going to raise your taxes!" and Democrats say "They're going to take away your social security!"

Still, I don't think Bush claimed his victory by pushing the anger buttons particularly well. Kerry just spent too much time pushing the wrong buttons. Bush was the most beatable president in a long time, but Kerry was the wrong candidate with the wrong campaign at the wrong time. In the middle of a war did we really think the people would elect a war-protester to command the military?

So, instead of pushing the right "anger points", Kerry spent a ludicrous amount of time trying to look like a military leader, which just didn't ever ring true. Here's why: Remember the debate with the questions from the audience? Bush was asked an environmental question. He responded by talking about the Clean Skies initiative and said the waters were cleaner now than when he took office. Probably his most solidly delivered response of the evening, and exactly the way he should have answered it in a debate . . . but anyone who cares about environmental issues saw right through him and laughed. There's no way Bush could play himself as an environmentalist and convince anyone except those who wanted to be fooled.

Kerry did the same thing to himself on military matters. No matter how many times he trumpeted his purple hearts and Vietnam service, nobody could see him leading the military unless they were blinded by their hatred for Bush.

Bush didn't WIN the election. Kerry LOST it, and by putting his face at the front, the Dems lost more elections than just the White House.

I see great similarities to the way Gray Davis was horribly unpopular in California, but still managed to get re-elected because his opponent was just the wrong guy with a lousy campaign. Then right afterward, Schwarzenegger ran a decent campaign and California was delighted to finally have a good excuse to toss Davis out of Sacramento.

Posted by: Wamba [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 11, 2005 03:26 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?