How Important is Communication Rhetoric in a Presidential Campaign?

Political campaigns are one of the hardest fought battles in America today. Each campaign brings about new ideas and strategies for each candidate. The office that people are seeking also marks changes in topics and strategies. Presidential campaigns are now starting two years before the general election, sometimes earlier. In today's world of mass-media coverage we are sometimes overrun with political news. However, presidential campaigns still hold a great deal of importance here in America. American's want to see prospective candidates and be able to vote for whom they believe is the best candidate. Communication is very important! Without effective communication, a candidate will not get their message across. This can create problems within their campaign. Effective communication can sometimes be a turning point in campaigns. There are numerous communication strategies that candidates could use, and it would be futile for this paper to try and cover every aspect of a campaign. We will however look at a few different strategies that are used most often.

One aspect of communication we will look at today is post-primary rhetoric, and the implications arriving from it. Does the campaign strategy change after a primary? What changes, if any, occur for different parts of the country? We will first take a look at some earlier research that looked at different campaigns and the communication strategies that were used, and then we will take a look at the 2000 presidential primaries.

Previous Campaign/Communication Strategies

Political campaigns have been a part of American history. With the advent of Mass Media, the campaigns continue to become larger each year. While there has been little research done on the content of candidate speeches after each primary, there has been adequate research on communication strategies overall. I will look at a few key strategies that have been used by candidates and who used them.

Richard Nixon will be remembered best through Watergate. However, the election of 1972 gives us a couple of different communication strategies for political campaigns. Rasmussen (1973) looked at Richard Nixon's strategy of avoiding the media. This strategy allowed Nixon to use the media without them attacking him. Rasmussen concludes; "the effective use of the media is a significant factor in modern politics is an understatement." Media effectiveness however depends on who you are, and what position you are in. Rasmussen looked at how the Committee to Re-elect the President urged his achievements in the White House. This was off set by the Democrats for Nixon who attacked his opponent, Senator George McGovern. While it appeared that Nixon was not attacking McGovern at all, it was McGovern who was being attacked, by his own party. So Nixon avoided the media and let the different committee's do most of the work. The only relationship Nixon had with the media was the speeches that he gave over the radio and television. The newspapers would always quote Nixon from the radio speeches giving him media coverage even when he was avoiding the media. So avoiding the media can work, if you are in the right position and people know who you are.

What is said during a primary race can hurt a candidate during the general election. In a study of George McGovern's race for the presidency (Trent and Trent 1974), when McGovern aligned himself with fringe groups to win the Democratic nomination it hurt his chances in November. This was the case in California when he made allies with enemies of the new liberals. Trent and Trent concluded that while the McGovern campaign believed they could win by focusing on McGovern's image, it hurt them in the long run. Trent and Trent also concluded that McGovern's continuous changing of key policies also hurt his credibility and his image. McGovern's rhetoric during the primary may have won him the nomination, but it lost him the presidency.

Negative advertising is the most widely known political tactics. Negative ads have been a major part of numerous campaigns, including national campaigns. Mudslinging and attack ads are synonymous with negative advertising. There is a lot of controversy over attack ads. Do they work? Do they create a backlash? Should they be answered? Sheckels (1994) examines attack ads and tries to answer some of the above questions. Sheckels reexamines the 1986 Senate race between Barbara Mikulski and Linda Chavez. Pfau and Kenski (1990) first examined this contest, and Sheckels takes another look at the race to try and determine if attack ads are effective. In the Senate race, Chavez attacked Mikulski relentlessly. The results of the attacks were mixed. Sheckels concludes that the attacks, to some extent, did work. The attacks generated anti-Mikulski votes, and it brought in more money for Chavez. Mikulski did respond to these "attack ads" by trying to keep the voters attention on issues and away from negative advertising. Mikulski even called the attacks "desperate." Sheckels also concludes that the ads also created a backlash against Chavez. Negative advertising is a popular method of communication in politics. The question we must ask is do they work? When looking at Sheckels and Pfau and Kenski it is hard to tell. There is some correlation between negative ads and votes. However, it is very difficult to tie the two together significantly. We can only predict some effect will happen.

Interpersonal communication is the best communication option for candidates for getting votes. Pfau, Diedrich, Larson and Van Winkle (1995) conducted research during the 1992 presidential primary for the Democratic nomination. They concluded that interpersonal communication was the most effective means of decision making for voters. Television spots do have an impact on voters, but it is the interpersonal communication between the candidate and the public that will create the most impact in decision-making. What is rather interesting in Pfau et al. research is that interpersonal communication was most effective when the national spotlight was not on the particular state. When the national media moved to the state with the primary, it was television spots and news coverage that created the most impact for voters. So a candidate must go to a state early and often if interpersonal communication is going to work. The results also varied between the candidates.

There are numerous campaign strategies and communication methods available for analysis. These are just a few key strategies that have been dominate throughout different national campaigns. More importantly, each one was used to some extent during the 2000 presidential primary race between George W. Bush and John McCain for the Republican nomination. Al Gore and Bill Bradley's race for the Democratic nomination used some of these tactics as well, but to a lesser degree. So what is most effective? Pfau et al. (1995) concludes that interpersonal communication is the most effective means of communication during a campaign. Attack ads have an impact as well. Avoiding the media can work, however you need to be in a position of power. Aligning yourself with fringe groups may be an effective way to win a primary unfortunately it can backfire later. By observing the 2000 Presidential primary race, we will be able to discover which ones were used, and which are effective. 2000 Presidential Primary

For most people, the nominee's for President were picked before the primary season had even started. George W. Bush was presumed to be the nominee for the Republican Party. Bush had raised more money than any candidate for president had ever raised, and every poll showed him with a thirty-plus lead over everyone. Al Gore was presumed to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. He was the Vice-President of an administration that was championing how good the economy was, and the fact that most Americans were happy with the way things were going. At the start of this race, it was Gore versus Bush, however, strange things started to happen. Senator John McCain, with his message of reform, started to gain on Bush. Former Senator Bill Bradley, with his organization and former basketball popularity, started to catch up on Gore. There was now a race for each party's nomination.

First let us look at the Democratic race. In the early parts of the primary, both candidates were very cordial to each other. When Bradley began to catch up on Gore, that is when some of the above mentioned tactics started happening. Gore started to attack Bradley. Gore attacked Bradley saying that Bradley had never talked about education before. This was an attempt to weaken Bradley's education proposal. Gore won by a large margin in Iowa. Gore was exuberant saying "Thank you for the biggest victory in the history of the contested caucuses here in Iowa." Gore was very excited and was acting like he had just won the presidential nomination. Bradley on the other hand seemed defeated, but promised to go on; "Tonight is not the end-it is just the beginning." Gore, presuming that he would be the nominee, even took a stab at the GOP front-runner George W. Bush. Gore attacked Bush's tax proposal calling it an "irresponsible tax scheme" that would harm our economy. Bill Bradley, now behind in many polls, started to attack Gore's honesty. Bradley said the he would "continue to call his opponent on what he was doing." Bradley was also quoted as saying "If you don't care about the people enough to tell them the truth in a campaign, how are they going to trust you care about them enough to fight for health care reform?" Gore responded by attacking Bradley's change of tactics; "I don't quite understand how someone can condemn so-called negative attacks, while in the next breath launch real negative attacks." So both candidates started to get very negative.

The next race was the New Hampshire primary, considered by many as a very important step in receiving the presidential nomination. Gore beat Bradley by a very narrow margin. Gore was very excited once again, "Some people said that we were going to fall a yard short [referring to the Tennessee Titans lose in the Super Bowl], this Tennessean is in the end-zone, and it feels good." Bradley's concession speech was anything but nice, "Al Gore has run a strong campaign and I congratulate him, but we are smarter and better-prepared." After New Hampshire, the Democratic race for the nomination took backstage to the Republican contest. The Democrats next primary election was 'Super Tuesday'. The Republicans however had a few states to compete in before 'Super Tuesday'.

Even if the Democrats had a few weeks between primaries, that did not stop the mud from being thrown at each other. Bradley again tried to attack Gore saying, "It's a choice between the old politics as practiced by Al Gore, a politics of rancor and division...and the politics that I practice, a new politics based on belief and conviction." Gore also stepped up his attacks. After Bradley unveiled a school reform plan, he stated, "Fourteen months have passed in this Presidential campaign and three states have had elections and only today for the first time in 14 months has Mr. Bradley made the first speech on education." Both continue on this trend of negative campaigning. Gore's lead continued to increase throughout all of the negative advertising. Gore started to avoid the media more and more with his increase in the polls. Bradley on the other hand, continued his assault on Gore.

Super Tuesday in 2000 made and broke both candidates. Bradley needed to win a majority of the states (16 of them) to continue his campaign for the Presidency. Gore, if he wins most of the states, he would essentially wrap up the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately for Bradley, he did not win a single state. Gore won every primary. This result forced Bradley to quit from the race. Gore, knowing that he had won, started to attack George W. Bush. Gore acknowledged the Bradley camp on a well-fought campaign. Bradley on the other hand was not very kind to Gore. Bradley joked about his unwillingness to open-up to the press. Bradley did not give an endorsement for Gore. He said that he would campaign for him, and support him, but there was no endorsement. He continued to be harsh towards Gore. Bradley also said that he would continue to fight on for the issues that he believes in and was campaigning for.

So what were some of the trends for the Democratic nomination? The first one, or the one that was the most prominent, was that of negativity. Victory speeches attacked the other party, and concession speeches attacked their opponent. Neither candidate was very cordial, either to each other, or to the other party's candidates. Gore and Bradley agreed that a Democratic President would be better than a Republican one. The second trend that occurred after the primaries was the "fight on" idea. Each time Bradley lost, he continued to say, "it is only the beginning, and that we will fight on." This idea of fighting on even continued after Bradley's defeat. He said that he would continue to fight for his ideas.

So the major tone of both candidates was vicious. Even after the Bradley campaign quit the race, he continued to say how vicious Gore was, and that he distorted his record. This was consistent throughout the entire campaign for both candidates.

The Republican primary results were rather different than the Democratic ones. Bush, the front-runner, did not win every primary like Gore did. McCain gave Bush a major challenge. The tones of the campaigns however were about the same.

The first primary that both candidates competed in was New Hampshire. McCain won New Hampshire by a large margin, and he was exuberant. McCain stated "We finally have a poll without a margin of error!" McCain was very excited about his campaign, and how well the turnout was in New Hampshire. McCain also took a quick stab at Bush, saying that this was sending a message to the Republican establishment that people wanted a change.

Bush however needed to change his strategy. Earlier in the campaign, he only attacked Gore and Bradley, now he started to focus more of his attention on McCain. Bush's remarks after the New Hampshire primary were subdued. He congratulated McCain on his victory, but he still felt that he was the front-runner in the campaign. Bush said, "New Hampshire has long been a bump in the road for the eventual Presidential nominee." He was confident that he could win. He did attack McCain's campaign strategy of only going to certain states, and not all of them; "I am campaigning in all 50 states, and that will win me the nomination." So while both candidates were cordial to each other, they also knew that this was going to be a long race, and were starting to show weaknesses in each other's campaigns.

After the South Carolina primary, the negativity only got worse. McCain criticized Bush on supposed "push polling" that occurred during the South Carolina primary. He called for an end to the negative advertising, since he had ended his negative ads. McCain promised to fight on, and said that this was not the end of his campaign.

Bush was once again very confident that he would be the nominee and next President, "This is the beginning of the end of the Clinton-Gore era in Washington." This was a repeat of his remarks after his victory in Iowa as well. He attacked Gore and Bradley again, but did acknowledge McCain for a well-fought race.

Three days later, the Michigan and Arizona primaries were held on the same day. McCain won both primaries and was once again exuberant, "One night, two victories!" The McCain campaign knew that he needed to win both states to push on, and continue his campaign for the nomination. Bush was again, not very cordial to McCain. He again congratulated him on a well-fought campaign, but again said that his strategy was a fifty state campaign. He stated that he would win the nomination because he has campaigned in every state, and eventually he would win the nomination.

The next big event was Virginia, where Bush was heavily favored. The day before the primary, McCain went there and criticized the right wing of the Republican Party. McCain stated, "We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Pat Robertson." This was a major slap at the group that was pushing hard for Bush. McCain knew that he could not win Virginia, so this was a strategy for Super Tuesday. Bush won Virginia, and he again believed that he would be the nominee. His confidence was high. McCain did not see this as a big defeat, because he knew that he had little chance of winning in Virginia. This was the last race before Super Tuesday.

The results of Super Tuesday were overwhelmingly for Bush. He won the majority of the primaries, and the majority of the delegates to the national convention. This caused McCain to drop out of the race a couple of days later. The results all but gave Bush the nomination for President. Bush's statement after Super Tuesday was very harsh towards Gore. He attacked Gore's idea of "Big Government." Bush stated, "I believe this administration has let us down." McCain's statements were very somber. In a statement two days after the "Super Tuesday" race, he stated, "I will never walk away from a fight that I know is right." This was of course referring to the Campaign-Finance Reform. McCain was subdued, a change from his usually upbeat and energetic style that was common during the rest of the campaign. McCain was gracious to Bush, and Bush was grateful for that. Bush congratulated McCain on his campaign and his decision to suspend his campaign.

So what were some of the trends in the Republican statements after primaries? The statements were very harsh after the first primary, and continued to be so throughout the campaign. If they were not towards each other, they were towards the Democratic candidates for President. So negativity was a major part in the speeches, especially if that candidate lost the previous race. When a candidate lost a race, they would be humbled, but they would also take shots at the other candidate. What is interesting is that when a candidate won a primary, they would attack the Democratic candidates.

Another trend was the confidence factor. For George W. Bush, he always considered himself the front-runner and eventually nominee for President. Even when Bush would loose a primary, he continued to say that he would win the nomination because he was running a fifty state campaign. This was a recurring theme with the Bush camp; that he would win because he had more money and organization in every state. McCain's main recurring theme was that of the straight talking, energetic, exuberant person who was having fun running for President. When McCain won a primary, he was so excited. Even the primaries McCain lost, he was still excited about his ideas and was going to "fight on." Even when McCain dropped out of the race, he pledged to fight on for his ideas. So again, the challenger pledged to fight on for their ideas that they were pushing for during the campaign.

These are just a few of the different themes that can occur during a Presidential Primary. Each year will be different, and each candidate will be different. While there are some recurring campaign tactics that candidate's use, such as negative advertising, interpersonal contact with constituents, and avoiding the media, there will always be some differences.

It is those differences in each campaign that make political campaigns interesting in their own right. Every four years brings us new and exciting candidates with different ideas and beliefs and campaign strategies. This paper is only the tip of the iceberg when we deal with communication in the Political realm.

Reference:

Rasmussen, K. (1973). Nixon and the strategy of avoidance. Central States Speech Journal, 24, 193-202

Trent, Judith S. and Trent, Jimmie D. "The Rhetoric of the Challenger: George Stanley McGovern." Communcation Studies. XXV (1974), 11-18.

Sheckels, T. F. (1994). Mikulski vs. Chavez for the senate from Maryland in 1986 and the "rules" for attack politics. Communication Quarterly, 42, 311-326.

Pfau, M., Kenski, H., (1990) Attack Politics, Strategy and Defense, Praeger Publishers, New York

Tracy Diedrich, Karla M. Larson , Michael Pfau, Kim M. Van Winkle "Influence of Communication Modalities on Voters' Perceptions of Candidates During Presidential Primary Campaigns." Journal of Communication. Volume: 45. Issue: 1. 1995. Pg. 122.

CNN.com archives; January 2000 through March 2000. Found On-Line:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/