Chill out

Published January 25, 2014

by Gary Pearce, January 24, 2014.

Whenever you think political discourse can’t get coarser, somebody comes along and proves you wrong. Especially super-PACs, which are basically piggy banks for political consultants who make big bucks by making over-the-top ads that make the people writing the checks happy but flop with voters. (See: Karl Rove, Crossroads GPS, 2012 elections.)

Carter and I got to talking about the hyperbole, overstatement and over-the-top rhetoric. We both have a suspicion that voters are on to the game; as soon as they hear the dark music and voice of doom that scream “political ad,” they tune out. Then Carter sent me some research that bears out our suspicion.

The Global Strategy Group studied the question: “How can candidates be more believable when talking about their opponents?” It concluded: “Cut the hyperbole, exaggeration and name-calling.” It elaborated:

“Eliminating hyperbole, embellishment and exaggeration leads to more credible messaging about opponents

“Given the need to break through, campaigns often dial up the heat to make their message as incendiary as possible. But our research shows that doing so makes messages less credible and thus less effective. Voters react better when there is no hyperbole or extraneous name-calling.

“GSG asked voters about a series of descriptions of their member of Congress. Half of voters heard descriptions with adjectives that summed up the negative with a pointed characterization, while the other half heard descriptions that did not include the additional adjectives.

“When asked if their member of Congress ‘has positions that are not moderate and lack common sense,’ 49% of voters agree the statement is true. But when asked if their member ‘has extreme and radical positions that are not moderate and lack common sense,’ just 27% agree – a 22-point decrease in believability. Similarly, when asked if their member ‘is a career politician who uses the title and office for personal financial gain,’ 52% agree. However, when asked if the member ‘is a corrupt career politician who uses the title and office for personal financial gain,’ just 31% agree – a 21-point drop.

“Eliminating hyperbole in ways beyond the characterization of an opponent also boosts credibility. Fifty-seven percent of voters say it is true that their member ‘hasn’t accomplished very much, and someone else could be more effective,’ but just 48% agree when the statement says their member ‘hasn’t accomplished anything at all, and someone else could be more effective’.”

One of the plagues of modern campaigns is consultants out to prove the’re the toughest SOBs in town. Their tough talk might impress their clients. But voters see through it.

Read More NC SPIN >>

January 25, 2014 at 11:04 am
Norm Kelly says:

I believe this is true. Voters are much more intelligent than political ads give us credit for.

Hyperbole & exaggeration occur on both sides of the political aisle. To me, it seems the biggest difference is who is using the hyperbole and how it's reacted to.

When Demons run ads full of hyperbole, exaggeration, and lies, they are strongly supported & defended by libs and media types (redundant!). Many times these ads are run by uncontrolled unions. And if libs really thought these ads were out of place and doing damage, they would put the same controls and limitations on unions as they do every other organization. DemocRATs are still asking the IRS to target conservative groups, specifically the TEA people. When the libs run an ad showing Paul Ryan throwing gramma off a cliff, how do the libs react? Full support. Claiming it's real. When it's the libs who make MAJOR cuts to medicare, who gets blamed for the cut? When libs choose to count money in both the Obamacare budget and the medicaid budget, what's the reaction? Libs claim it's a lie. Then, with the support of unions and media types, the notion of no cut or a Republican-led cut is repeated often and loudly. People like Valerie Jarrett and Debbie Shultz continue to spread the lie. And no one on the left reports on it or asks them about it. Educated voters know that both Valerie and Debbie have told a 'mistruth' before their mouth is even open. Libs says something outrageous, both can be counted on to tell us they were taken out of context, we didn't hear what we thought we heard. When a conservative says something perfectly legitimate (think Huckabee), libs actually do take it out of context, change the entire meaning of what was said, and defend their stance knowing full well that they are telling a 'mistruth'. (see, i am becoming a good lib. i know to use 'mistruth' instead of 'lie'. dems can't 'lie'. they tell 'mistruths'.)

So, when the outrage on the left matches the hyperbole, exaggeration, and lies told by the left and it's supporters, then I'll believe something will be done about it.

I tend to tune out of most political ads because I know they are going to distort someones record. But when it comes to some conservative group explaining how K is a major supporter of socialist programs, I tune in because it's nice to hear a political ad that's on target. I also tune in to this type of ad so I know what the libs are railing about when they put out their disinformation about the lies told in the ad. I try to keep myself educated about the political environment. I might watch a lib ad once so I know what they are claiming, then do some research on my own to find the truth. Most of the time, the truth has no comparison to what was in the ad - especially if the ad is sponsored by either a union or Soros. When libs say things like Ryan throws gramma off the cliff, the reaction is minimal. When conservatives tell the truth about K being a socialist and voting for socialist ideas, I watch the reaction to see how libs start telling lies about K's real record. Truth in advertising is a wonderful thing. It's time ALL political ads were held to the same standards the feds hold businesses. Using K's voting record in ads sponsored by her opponent for some reason offends libs. But it's the way it should be. Tell the truth about your opponent, as well as about yourself.