Question of the Week: Why Do Politicians Lie?

Politicians lie for a very simple reason: to get more votes. It's a reality of politics that not every person in the country will agree with your goals and beliefs. Maybe not even a majority of the country (or state, city, or school-wherever the election is taking place) will agree with a politician's positions. Having to please enough people to build a majority of supporters means that, as a politician, you have to tell people something that will please them enough to get them to vote for you. Crooked politicians will tell one group of people something in Florida, and then tell a different group the complete opposite when in Ohio. Fortunately, our founding fathers established freedom of the press and speech in our constitution and we can point out these discrepancies, especially in the age of YouTube. Even so, the ability to point out candidates' lies and "misspeaks" is irrelevant if the people who are voting don't pay attention enough to realize that they are being lied to. When a large chunk of the population doesn't make up their mind about who they are going to vote for until they get into the voting booth, that tells me that likewise a large chunk of the population is apathetic and uninformed. They hear something told to them by a candidate in Florida and go vote without realizing that the candidate said the complete opposite in Ohio. Which leads me to my second reason why politicians lie: because they can. Only very politically inclined people and those who really scrutinize the news are the ones that can actually make the connection of when a candidate is or is not lying. Only the well informed will know when lies are being told, and I think that a small percentage of the population pays this amount of attention. The rest of the population can be lied to and it will not affect how they vote, since they don't realize the politician is lying to them and thus their vote is not swayed.
Since a lot of the population falls for that kind of trickery, it is to the politician's benefit to lie to different groups of voters. You go around the country telling people what they want to hear--even if it's not the truth--and you will gain a lot of support in the uninformed voter demographic. That's why Thomas Jefferson stressed the importance of a "strongly informed and well-educated electorate", so that a majority of voters know their stuff and can make informed, educated, and well thought out votes when they go vote, and not just close their eyes and fill in ovals.

Question Of The Week: Democrats For McCain?

According to recent polls, 20% of Democratic voters say they will vote for Senator John McCain if their preferred Democratic nominee does not get the nomination. Do I think they will really do this come election day? I'm sure that will be fairly close to the percentage of Democrats who will vote for McCain, although we're a long way from election day. I think this is mainly due to McCain's appeal to moderate/independent voters. Both of the Democratic nominees are very liberal candidates, moderate Democrats probably see the opposing candidate as more liberal than their preferred candidate. Couple that with John McCain's appeal to more moderate/independent voters, and it makes sense that he would get a large portion of moderate Democrat voters. Some of those may just not vote, particularly the young, impressionable, and passionate Obama voters. Either way, whether it be moderates crossing party lines or refusing to vote, John McCain benefits.

Question of the Week: What Factors Should A Candidate Consider When Dropping Out Of A Political Campaign?

Candidates running for office must consider many factors when deciding to drop out of a race or keep plugging along. Candidates definitely have to worry about their financial situation. Campaigning relies heavily on candidate appearances and media attention; both of which are extremely expensive. Without these two factors, a candidacy is almost certainly kaput. Candidates often need to face the math that they're up against, too. Momentum of their opponents is often so incredible and they are behind by so much it's nearly impossible to come back and win. Candidates should keep in mind the opportunity costs involved in staying in a campaign. If they're losing a presidential campaign but enjoy bountiful support back home, the candidate may be better off running against an incumbent in the opposing party for, say, a senate seat. Candidates have to keep in mind the vitality of the party in situations like this, and if the writing is on the wall that they're just not the candidate people want, candidates should do what they can to help their party out, whether it be running for another office or helping with grassroots efforts.

Question of the Week: Does Negative Campaigning Work?

Yes and no.
First, it really depends on the mood of the election. As we talked about in class, if people are sick of that kind of stuff, voters will really be turned off by negative campaigning. On the other hand, criticisms can be important in an election to point out inconsistencies and problems with opposing candidates.

Something dubbed a negative campaign may not always necessarily be a negative campaign. There are several different genres of campaigns. A campaign ad may just flat-out smear and rip into a candidate with falsehoods, name-calling, and half-truths. In my opinion, this is the worst kind of negative campaigning as it intentionally misleads and does not even reference the candidate who is paying for the ad--it just rips into the other person.

A second type, one I like to call "two truths and a lie", states some things about the opposing candidate, sometimes true and sometimes false, but then compares those things to the candidate's positions the ad is purporting.

The third type is like the last one, but the ad is actually honest and points out very concerning things an opposing candidate supports, and this is a very important part of politics in that it points out real concerns to voters. It casts a candidate in a light that says "I do not support these positions" and draws clear differences between candidates so voters can decide.

Unfortunately, campaigns are rarely honest, so we are not often exposed to the truth or the whole truth, but pointing out differences between candidates, which I would not call "negative campaigning" is much better than flat out smearing a candidate with falsehoods and lies.

I think negative ads might be more beneficial to candidates who are running against an incumbent. Controversial things will get more free air time for the candidate and more name recognition for the person who is trying to make a name for themselves. Also, campaigns against an incumbent are often dubbed "negative campaigns" because the candidate has political ammunition in the sense that he can point out inconsistencies between policies the incumbent pursued previously and what they are saying on the current campaign trail.