|
|
« Previous Politics | Next Politics » |
|
Beyond Polling
ByThis is Shrum's method, and it seems to be the method of most of his colleagues in the Democratic consulting game. The only problem with it is that it doesn't work. Indeed, it such a bad method that I don't think anyone would explicitly defend it. Nobody denies that preference intensity matters, that there are threshold criteria, or that elections are primarily decided by low-information voters who tend to vote on character questions and that issues primarily matter because they affect perceptions of character. Nobody denies that stuff, but they keep doing the same thing anyway.
The issue, I think, is that polling is a useful way for the consultants themselves to evade accountability. If Gore took my advice and lost, all you could say about it was that my political judgment had proven to be poor. When candidates take Shrum's advice and lose, by contrast, Shrum gets to point to the polling data as hard proof that his strategy was correct and blame defeat on other factors -- the inevitable gaffes, unfair attacks from the opposition, etc. Admitting that political strategy is more art than science would threaten the position of the strategists, so the strategists rely on the most quantitative tool available, even though on some level (note that political pollsters' findings tend to vary quite a bit according to ideology) they don't really believe in it.



























Join the Discussion
After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus