Regarding Val’s thread on the recall—I probably agree with most of the thrust of it, but I think it’s probably wrong to imagine Obama’s message as trying to convince undecided voters, or voters who would have voted “yes”, to vote “no”. I think most likely its real purpose is to cause people to vote “no” who otherwise wouldn’t have bothered voting at all. Turnout in off-cycle elections like this is invariably low, and Republicans who hate the Governor have much more incentive to pay attention than Democrats who probably think he’s fine but mostly don’t care.
Beyond that, I think the unified “Republican recall” branding, in the Democratic messaging about this vote, is interesting for what it seems designed to counteract. It’s easy for low-information voters, who feel vaguely negative about the Governor, to take this as effectively a referendum on whether they like the job he’s doing. The recall is focused on the current officeholder, and doesn’t make the alternative nearly as salient. That is arguably a defect in the recall process, which would tend to create outcomes that the majority would not actually support if polled effectively about them.
So the purpose of the “Republican recall” branding—which I grant is conflict theory / “zombie virus” aligned—is to shift the public perception of the recall to understanding it as a race between the incumbent and the top Republican challenger, rather than an opinion poll about the Governor without thought to what the alternative is. It’s a blunt instrument, but arguably an accurate message under the circumstances.
(The “think of the children” stuff is obviously terrible, though, and the “rah rah forwards” is certainly something. It reminds me of an energy drink ad from a number of years ago, declaring that it had “none of the bad stuff”. That’s certainly one way to avoid having to be specific.)
Regarding Val’s thread on the recall—I probably agree with most of the thrust of it, but I think it’s probably wrong to imagine Obama’s message as trying to convince undecided voters, or voters who would have voted “yes”, to vote “no”. I think most likely its real purpose is to cause people to vote “no” who otherwise wouldn’t have bothered voting at all. Turnout in off-cycle elections like this is invariably low, and Republicans who hate the Governor have much more incentive to pay attention than Democrats who probably think he’s fine but mostly don’t care.
Beyond that, I think the unified “Republican recall” branding, in the Democratic messaging about this vote, is interesting for what it seems designed to counteract. It’s easy for low-information voters, who feel vaguely negative about the Governor, to take this as effectively a referendum on whether they like the job he’s doing. The recall is focused on the current officeholder, and doesn’t make the alternative nearly as salient. That is arguably a defect in the recall process, which would tend to create outcomes that the majority would not actually support if polled effectively about them.
So the purpose of the “Republican recall” branding—which I grant is conflict theory / “zombie virus” aligned—is to shift the public perception of the recall to understanding it as a race between the incumbent and the top Republican challenger, rather than an opinion poll about the Governor without thought to what the alternative is. It’s a blunt instrument, but arguably an accurate message under the circumstances.
(The “think of the children” stuff is obviously terrible, though, and the “rah rah forwards” is certainly something. It reminds me of an energy drink ad from a number of years ago, declaring that it had “none of the bad stuff”. That’s certainly one way to avoid having to be specific.)