Flip-Flop Attacks Are Generally Ineffective

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:50


Remember when Bill Clinton was portrayed as a waffle in Doonesbury? I bet you probably don't:

When Clinton was elected in 1992, Trudeau gave his readers the chance to vote on what his presidential Icon would be. The choices both reflected Clinton's reputation for being wishy-washy: a flipping coin or a large waffle. The waffle got the most votes and became Clinton's official avatar. However, the waffle appeared infrequently after a while when Clinton's "waffling" became less of a hot-button issue and fewer people got the joke. Thus Clinton was most often portrayed by the "White House Dialog"

Also, remember when the 2004 Bush campaign ran ads of John Kerry windsurfing, and spent months trying to label Kerry a "flip-flopper?" During that phase of the campaign, Kerry's numbers actually steadily rose:
Chris Bowers :: Flip-Flop Attacks Are Generally Ineffective

Remember when Barack Obama was attacked for "moving to the center?" The McCain campaign even held regular conference calls detailing Obama's many flip-flops. However, in the twenty-two days since July 17th, the day the McCain campaign released a web video accusing Obama of flip-flopping on Iraq, "move to the center" is a phrase that has only appeared in Google News twenty-one times. On most occasions, it appeared in small, alternative news organizations. In fact, not only has McCain entirely dropped that line of attack on Obama, they are now criticizing him mainly for being too resolute on issues like energy and Iraq.

I argued recently that Obama's mid-July downturn began on July 8th, and was a result of the "move to the center" meme peaking in the media. However, a look at the polling trend chart above shows that Obama actually reached his national polling peak on June 22nd, and has a been in a slow decline ever since. Given that the move to the center meme didn't really enter the discourse until about June 27th, in retrospect it is difficult to argue that the flip-flop or move to the center attack on Obama was responsible. Combine this with the failure of the attack against Bill Clinton and John Kerry, and also combined with the McCain campaign dropping the line, and it is worth calling into question the overall effectiveness of the flip-flop charge against any politician.

Do flip-flop attacks hurt politicians? I'm not seeing much evidence of it. I could be wrong, but I at least wanted to float the thesis: flip-flop attacks are generally ineffective. They also form large percentage of the attacks that people seem to be suggesting, and even engaging in, against McCain. If my thesis is right, they probably won't work.

What attacks might work against McCain? I don't know for sure, but probably that he is a liar and a Republican. Obama has opened the liar line of attack today, even tinged with a hint of partisanship:

This ad is a lie, and it's part of the old, tired politics of a party in Washington that has run out of ideas and run out of steam.

While I don't know for sure that this line of attack will work, it seems very promising.  

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Flip-Flop Attacks Are Generally Ineffective | 21 comments
Multiple-choice Mitt (4.00 / 2)
I appreciate that you qualified your post with "generally", because obviously there are no hard laws in politics. I think if Romney had been the nominee we could have destroyed him with his flip-flops. They were just too juicy and just painted too compelling a picture of a human being entirely without a soul. Following on that, I think flip-flops can be worked effectively into a larger narrative. McCain has run on being a principled maverick, and I think his opportunistic cavings could be used to undermine that.  
On the other hand, (0.00 / 0)
Mitt would also have much more aggressively, competently, and early on moved to negatively define Obama than McCain has. It would definitely have been interesting.
[ Parent ]
Just words (4.00 / 3)
Like most things, it probably depends on how it's done. Maybe people are sick of hearing the term "flipflop", for one thing. When you think about it, that's a pretty mild offense. Most ads pretty much stop with accusing the pol of flipflopping without saying what's wrong with that.

If you run some content beyond just the pejorative, you'd probably have an effective weapon against McCain. Put him on the defensive about why offshore drilling, for example, was bad last year but essential now. Suggest that it's about campaign money, not principles. Leave out saying "flipflop" and stick to the issue itself.

Examples vs. Theme (4.00 / 1)
You're right. Flip-flop examples by themselves may be ineffective because they may be explainable, even if you disagree with the change (e.g. Being against drilling when oil is $50/barrel and for it when it's $140/barrel). But if you develop a theme -- you can't trust what the candidate says and/or the candidate does not have any core values -- and there are enough flip-flop examples to reinforce the theme, it can be effective.

People expect politicians to 'finger in the wind' change positions, even if it disgusts them generally about the profession.  Arguments about flip-flops on policy positions don't have impact. Indeed, running on policy positions isn't a winning strategy -- Gore and Kerry's policy positions were favored by majorities and both lost.

It's about character, core values and likability, not position papers. Flip-flops must be tied to character or some meta theme, not simply policy gotchas. Effective ad hominem will always trump policy correctness. Republicans know this to their core; Democrats seemingly don't know it at all.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
I remember that (0.00 / 0)
during the Kerry flip-flop attacks, some news program ran a story showing the "flip-flop" charges being used -- with more or less identical language -- against every Democratic nominee since McGovern.  (Well, I don't remember exactly if it was McGovern, but certainly the use of the same attack against Clinton was very memorable.)  Sometimes it works better than others, I suppose.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

I don't think it's the "flip flop" meme itself which was so damaging, (4.00 / 1)
but the "I voted for it before I voted against it" line which came out of his own mouth which hurt him a lot. I don't think Obama has said anything like this, and I hope he never does.
[ Parent ]
As A Great Believer In Overdetermination and Multiple Causation, I Remain Unconvinced (4.00 / 2)
that there's no impact, though I agree that you've found something significant.

It's certainly noteworthy that direct correlations don't support the thesis that such attacks are effective, but such attacks can contribute to a larger set of narratives whose cumulative impact may not be felt until later.  This may seem like just a nit-picky point, and for immediately practical purposes, it well may be so.

However, I think it's important to seriously consider Glenn Greenwald's thesis in Great American Hypocrite. The flip-flopping attacks on Clinton, Kerry and now Obama all serve as a subgenre of broader attacks on Democrats as lacking principles.  Thus, even if they don't show up in immediate imacts, they extend the articulation of a much more fundamental rightwing narrative, and simply by being discussed they take up space and shape discussions that might otherwise be turned in a more constructive, progressive direction.  And these lost opportunities are of necessity not the sorts of thing that your approach can measure.

By the same token, attacks on McCain's character as a flip-flopper also need to be seen within this larger framework.  They are not simply the mirror image of flip-flop attacks on Democrats, since they go against, and serve to undermine the larger, decades-long conservative narrative.  Thus, they have a larger utility, regardless of whether they show up in terms of short-term horse-race impacts.

This is not an argument to keep using a line of attack, whether it proves immediately effective or not.  It's simply a caution against taking an "all or nothing" view.  I would certainly agree that we should look for the most unambiguously effective lines of attack, and I think that attacking him simply as a Republican makes a lot of sense in that framework.

But I'd argue that there's still some benefit in adding a dash of the flip-flopping charge to the mix.  If nothing else, it will get under McCain's skin, and increase the likelihood of a big-time meltdown in the future, hopefully at one of the debates, where his friends in the Versailles media simply won't be able to cover it up anymore.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

For It before he was Against It (4.00 / 1)
In political ads (and most communication) repetition causes inoculation --

In other words, accusing your opponent of flip flopping has lost it effectiveness because it has been overused.

One of the reasons traditional political ad campaigns are ineffective is because the style is so familiar, it is easy to tune them out.

When Team Bush heard John Kerry say "he voted for it before he voted against it" a hushed murmur went through the room -- they had just been given the weapon to eviscerate Kerry's credibility.

Conclusion -- use a flip flop attack in a creative way, that breaks through the clutter.

Obama saying it will be interesting to watch the debate between John McCain and John McCain is an attempt to do that. Whether it succeeds remains to be seen.

Suggestion -- use the Kerry construct to go after McCain.

Example -- John McCain was for Immigration Reform before he was against it.

This issue has the potential to do particular damage to McCain -- it under mines his support among the Nativist GOP, and it further discredits him among Hispanics.

[ Parent ]
but, using your own logic, that locution is played out. nt. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Weakness (0.00 / 0)
I don't think anyone cares that candidates change their minds or adjust their positions.  They do care that they are weak or have no core values.

In Kerry's case it was the Swift Boating that did him in.  But one wonders if the flip-flopping charge didn't lay the groundwork for the weakness charge to set in.  Flip-flopping itself doesn't imply weakness, but combined with other weakness charges, perhaps it adds to the effect.

Not so much the flipflopping (4.00 / 1)
I think it was not so much the charges themselves as Kerry's inability/unwillingness to deal with them effectively. Instead of saying he'd changed his mind and why, and using the attack to his advantage, he came off as trying to weasel out of it by parsing -- in a grotesque variation on what the meaning of It is. That's what made him look weak.

Seems to me the same thing would happen to McCain if anybody ever effectively challenged the amazing flips and loops of his "straight shooting" history.

[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)
Fortunately, Obama never responds that way.  (Well, other than FISA, but that stands out as a special case in my mind.  I still suspect there was a backroom deal to protect Democrats.)

I agree about McCain.

[ Parent ]
Obama has tended to go negative in ways that reinforce his own (4.00 / 1)
positive messaging, as in the quote above. He's been quite consistent with this approach, and I see it as a savvy win-win approach. Many in the netroots seem to crave a full-bore negative attack, but why exactly is that be more effective than Obama's 2-for-1 gambits?  
Take down "Straight Talk" (0.00 / 0)
Stop responding/arguing in specifics and develop a theme: "John McCain does not give you Straight Talk." Use the specifics to reinforce the theme.

They've been dancing all around it: "This ad is a lie," It'll be interesting to hear John McCain debate John McCain" (about tire gauges), "Maverick?" But they don't connect the dots to an overall message: "John McCain does not give you Straight Talk."

I've said more about this here, here and here. Bottom line: "Straight Talk" is foundational to McCain. Take it away, make it not credible and he can't win.

~~~

Deep thought*: Why are the Republicans better at developing/advancing themes in code than the Democrats are at developing themes at all...?

*TM Atrios

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

Dancing around it? (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad and encouraged that they're finally willing to use the word "lie". This is the second time now: first last week when Obama called the GOP out with "well, they're lying" in connection with the whole "Obama's energy plan is tire guages! hahahaha!" thing, and now with "this ad is a lie". Maybe this is like Truman and manure in reverse. And maybe one of these days some important Democrat will be willing to use the word in conjunction with Mr. Bush.

Btw, the cake is a lie.

[ Parent ]
Take it to the logical conclusion (0.00 / 0)
If he lies, he's not talking straight.  So say it that way. By name.

Look, in 2004 Kerry tried to run with the foundation that he's a 'war hero' and the Republicans went right after, tore it down and effectively neutered him. In 2008 we're running against someone who claims the foundation of "Straight Talk." Let's take that down -- by name.

Imagine a narrative where every time McCain lies, fibs, reverses there is public, overt, direct mocking and ridicule of "Straight Talk" -- by name -- from Obama's mouth, surrogates, paid media and pundit media.

Imagine moving the political discourse to the point where the words "Straight Talk" make people derisively laugh at McCain. Where his bus and plane actually mock him. The material is there to support the theme and make that happen.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
I think "lie" is a stronger phrase than "not talking straight", (0.00 / 0)
but given that "straight talk" is McCain's slogan, your idea does have merit. But they have been calling him out on this -- see www.lowroadexpress.com, for example. They have not been willing to call them outright liars before this.
[ Parent ]
More like this (0.00 / 0)
Atrios:

Mocking The Straight Talk

Now that's a campaign ad I can believe in, my friends.

Atrios, who has the genius of encapsulating concepts into mere words has it exactly right: "Mocking the Straight Talk." That's the theme -- by name.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
takes a while for negative messages to sink in/be accepted (0.00 / 0)
the gop has been effective in identifying a 'flaw' in the dem candidate's character, advancing the theme via ads and pundits, and then pouncing when the dem candidate makes a gaffe that seems to prove the flaw.

"I voted against the war before I voted for it" Its easy to be called a flip flopper when you admit to it yourself.

"Going to put social security in LOCKBOX"  "I invented the internet" This stuff just proved a point--that Gore was an out of touch intellectual-- that was already being advanced by the other side.

Obama is a vastly superior politician than Gore or Kerry (with a superior campaign) but he is at risk of the same.... as in arrogance, hubris, celebrity.

(btw i think he has already handled the 'obama isn't patriotic pretty well')

Also, interestingly enough... (0.00 / 0)
"Says Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan in a a statement: This ad is a lie..."

Not Bill Burton? Dare I hope? No wonder it's so much better than their usual fare.

Critical Mass... (0.00 / 0)
Attacks in politics seem to work best when they either reinforce an existing weakness (Hillary Clinton is ruthless and will do anything to win...) or reduce the effectiveness of a strength (Swiftboating).

So where "flip-flopping" builds on an established worry (even if the worry is not real) it could be effective.

The later type of attack (essentially making something out of nothing) takes a lot of time and effort. For established politicians, where the fault lines are already known, most of the preliminary work has been done.

I think that's part of McCain's problem with Obama. His image hasn't been worn down enough to be vulnerable to reinforcing type attacks - so McCains campaign has to try to do the full-on Rove thing. Only that requires a lot of message discipline to get it to the point where it sinks in, if it ever does, and McCain hasn't been able to stick to one (or a small number of) attack(s).

I think what McCain is down now is almost feeling Obama out. He's throwing a bunch of punches in the hopes of finding a systematic hole in the defense somewhere. But it's taking time to do that kind of exploration and he doesn't have that much time left.

I like Obama's message discipline. They've found three messages: McCain is an old, flip-flopping Bush-clone.

Flip-Flop Attacks Are Generally Ineffective | 21 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox