David Axelrod, a senior campaign adviser for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, trash-talked Mitt Romney on Sunday, calling last week’s Republican National Convention “a terrible failure” and claiming Romney did not receive a polling bounce.
Presidential campaign staff are always saying stuff like that. How badly the other side is doing. Promoting polls that show their own candidate doing well and dissing polls that don’t. While that seems like natural fighting spirit, from the strategic point of view this is sometimes questionable strategy.
If you had the power to implant arbitrary expectations into the minds of your supporters and those of your rival, what would they be?
- You wouldn’t want your supporters to think that your candidate was very likely to lose.
- But neither would you want your supporters to think that your candidate was very likely to win.
- Instead you want your supporters to believe that the race is very close.
- But you want to plant the opposite beliefs in the mind of the opposition. You want them to think that the race is already decided. It probably doesn’t matter which way.
All of this because you want to motivate your supporters and lure the opposition into complacency. If you are David Axelrod and your candidate has a lead in the polls and you can’t just conjure up arbitrary expectations but you can nudge your supporter’s mood one way or the other you want to play up the opposition not denigrate them.
Unless its only the opposition that is paying attention. Indeed suppose that campaign staffers know that the audience that is paying closest attention to their public statements is the opposition. Then right now we would expect to be hearing Democrats saying they are winning and Republicans saying their own campaign is in disarray.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 26, 2012 at 9:04 am
twicker
The problem the GOP has with the “disarray” comments is that they can suppress turnout for your own people – because, as a leader, one’s campaign should not be in disarray. Yes, you want your side to believe that you have an uphill battle – but you don’t want your side to believe that you face that battle because you’re a slacker leader. 🙂
There are also times when, if you believe that you’re very likely to win, then your supporters will come out in even more force. People like being able to identify with great causes, and, if you can convince your supporters that you have a great cause and that they should be part of something huge, then that will get them to turn out. Right now, we’re too evenly split in the country for that to really be the case – and we’re at the point that you’re predicting with your 4 points.
As always, caveat emptor; YMMV. 🙂
September 26, 2012 at 2:42 pm
twicker
With respect to the difference between, “We’re behind, and need to work hard,” which would be expected to rally the troops, and, “Our candidate can’t lead,” which would be expected to suppress them:
ABC News:
Criticism of Romney’s Campaign Grows;
Six in 10 Rate His Efforts Negatively
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/criticism-of-romneys-campaign-grows-six-in-10-rate-his-efforts-negatively/
And:
NYTimes:
Polls Show Obama Widening His Lead in Ohio and Florida
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/polls-show-obama-widening-lead-in-ohio-and-florida.html?_r=1
Even that Peggy Noonan article isn’t about how Republicans need to rally behind Romney; it’s about Romney being, as she says, “incompetent.” Not a word that anyone wants associated with someone they are thinking of voting for. The narrative that’s coming out of the GOP right now is more like your point #1 than #2, IMHO.
September 26, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Enrique
This post raises a fascinating possibility, the possibility of “information discrimination” in place of price discrimination as a form of strategic behavior. This, in turn, raises another question: under what circumstances is “information discrimination” efficient from a social cost perspective (assuming, of course, such a clever strategy if feasible)
September 26, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Anonymous
a good recent example of “information discrimination” is that of orbitz (i believe) showing cheaper hotels to microsoft users and more expensive hotels to apple users. note that the prices for all hotels were the same, just that the ones that showed up at the top of the search results were different. why? their data suggested that microsoft users tended to buy cheaper hotels than apple users.
October 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Jonathan Weinstein
For the debate specifically, it’s comical how both sides have been trying to lower expectations and talk up the other guy. This is apparently in the belief that the “winner” will be decided relative to expectations.
April 3, 2013 at 4:04 am
Death Valley and the most beautiful road of the world
[…] is this road so beautiful?” I’m glad you ask. I guess it has something to do with the expectations game. I didn’t know what to expect (how beautiful is a desert?), which made it easy to meet and […]