PAUL
TAYLOR replies:
This
seems to me the most important change in the dynamics of campaign communication
that we've seen in a decade or more. The groups which until '96, maybe
a little bit in '94, thought that the way they played in political campaigns
was to give money to candidates or some instances to parties and let the
candidates or the parties do the advertising, they discovered "Hey, why
don't we eliminate the middleman? We can do it ourselves. In a sense we
can get a two-fer: we can either support or oppose the candidate we're
interested in seeing either in or out, but we can also promote our own
issue." So, it works all sorts of ways.
I
think there is going to be a continuation of that in 1998. I think that
the batting average, the track record was mixed in '96, and is likely
to be mixed again in '98. That's been the experience in some of the skirmishes
so far.
Although some of the groups that do it, electing or defeating, a candidate
is only one of many objectives, so that there's a lot that's attractive
about this. On the other hand, if they really decide that what they want
to do is to defeat a particular incumbent, or elect a particular challenger,
they may conclude--some of these groups, particularly large membership
groups--may conclude, "We're not spending our money as effectively by
going on the air and appealing presumably to 100% of all the citizens
of the given Congressional district or whatever, maybe it's better for
us to activate our own base. Do more internal kinds of communications;
literature, mailouts, and that sort of thing."
Again, you know, this is all tactical stuff. I think in the longer sweep
of things, we're in a year now where candidates are in danger of becoming
bit players in their own campaigns and where instead of just having a
two-way contest, you suddenly have a cacophony of voices. It's very confusing.
I think it's confusing for the voter in particular. I think it's somewhat
scary, frankly, for the candidate. They worry not only about the opposition
groups coming after them, you know, some of them worry about getting hit
by friendly fire: the group that's really supporting their candidacy but
does it in a ham-handed way ends up backfiring on the candidate. |
|

Quicktime movie
RealVideo file |