Election Hindsight: Handling the Negativity

The Clifford camp ran a hard race. I have little doubt those who participated in the campaign did their best to win and that should be commended.

Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. If Clifford pulled out the victory, a post like this wouldn't exist. It's easy to say things should've been done differently after the results are tallied.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't critically examine how things went to better prepare for future races. And that next State Supreme Court race is just around the corner with Justice Louis Butler's seat up next year, although the lessons of the Clifford campaign are certainly transferable into other elections.

When a margin of victory is as large as it was in the Clifford-Ziegler race, there are probably a number of factors involved in the outcome. But I have to agree, at least in part, with Nate when he writes:

Clifford and her Democratic posse gambled on a strategy of giving voters as little information as possible about her, while simultaneously attacking Ziegler like a pit bull. I think its fair to say that such a strategy back fired.

I wouldn't say the Clifford camp was trying to hide its candidate, at least not consciously, but the emphasis on attacking Ziegler is unquestionable, and those attacks did serve to drown out any positive message that Clifford had to offer. But, even worse, the attacks didn't fit into any logical framework that voters could easily understand.

It seems the left forgot the lessons of the gubernatorial election last fall: At least in statewide races, negativity works best when it complements a campaign theme, not when it defines it.

Just check out the ads that were run by the Clifford side in the race. Aside from a spot or two on the newspaper endorsements Clifford received, everything else is about Annette Ziegler. And after those hits on Ziegler, there wasn't a clear and logical bridge leading voters back to Clifford.

To be sure, while Ziegler was clearly just as negative with her ads, that negativity fit into a simple, effective, and consistent frame: Clifford = activist attorney, Ziegler = experienced judge. In other words, Clifford's alleged weaknesses fed directly into Ziegler's alleged strengths.

It's just like in the gubernatorial race when Doyle's "Green is extreme" line dovetailed perfectly with his campaign's message on stem cell research. When Green hit Doyle on ethics, conversely, he had little to follow it up except lame assurances that he was a good guy.

Clifford, likewise, followed her ethics charges against Ziegler with the fact that she had extensive legal experience along with the backing of a number of newspaper editorial boards around the state; but those points are only peripheral to the issue of ethics. That just isn't going to play as well as the activist attorney vs. experienced judge frame.

I don't have anything specific to offer that could've helped the Clifford campaign create a more seamless link between its negative message and its positive message, and it would be pointless to speculate on that level of detail. But the clear lesson for future races is that negativity cannot be a standalone enterprise.

And while simply balancing the amount of negative with the same amount of positive may be better than leaning heavily on the negative, the best results come when the negatives of the opponent lead voters directly into the positives of the candidate.

Clifford's Supporters Oppose School Choice?

SEE UPDATES BELOW

I was caught by a comment made in the Journal Sentinel this morning regarding the state Supreme Court race.

While the article in question claims it's unclear where either Linda Clifford or Annette Ziegler stand on the school voucher program, it states that a few things are clear, including the following: "Clifford's backers include many people and groups who oppose the school choice program. Ziegler's backers include many who favor the program."

Hmm. I remember following the school voucher debate pretty closely last January. And though it's been awhile, I only remember two groups -- WEAC and the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association (MTEA) -- that opposed the voucher program.

While GOPers tried really hard to make the voucher debate a "for or against" issue on the program as a whole, the debate was really over how much the program would be expanded. Governor Doyle and most legislative Dems backed controlled growth along with instituting classroom accountability and many legislative Republicans supported removing the cap altogether without classroom accountability.

Looking at the list of supporters on Clifford's website along with the list of her campaign donors, I don't see WEAC or MTEA. And I couldn't find anything on either group's website about Linda Clifford or the state Supreme Court race in general.

It seems to me this JS article was making an assumption -- and, perhaps, an inaccurate one -- based upon the fact that Clifford is essentially the Dem candidate and Ziegler is essentially the GOP candidate. So you could really substitute any partisan issue with clear consitutional implications into that statement.

For instance, "Clifford's backers include many people and groups who support a woman's right to choose. Ziegler's backers include many who oppose a woman's right to choose."

Or, "Clifford's backers include many people and groups who oppose concealed carry. Ziegler's backers include many who favor concealed carry."

But, of course, the tricky part about using school vouchers is that neither party has proposed eliminating the voucher program; again, the debate was (and is) over the program's growth.

And, ultimately, all of statements listed above say very little about what either candidate would do as a state Supreme Court justice to impact any of the issues at hand. Although the JS article said its version of the statement was "clear," rather than providing clarity, it actually did nothing more than increase speculation, just as any version of that statement would.

Nevertheless, I emailed Alan Borsuk -- the lead author of the JS article -- this morning to see what he was basing the statement upon. I'll add an update when I hear back.

UPDATE: Borsuk responded by giving WEAC and the Milwaukee County Labor Council (MCLC) as two examples of voucher opponents who have endorsed Clifford.

Jay also notes in the comments that WEAC has endorsed Clifford, but I still can't seem to find the endorsement. It's not on WEAC's webstite or Clifford's website, and there's no listing of it at the Wheeler Report or WisPolitics dating back through the time that Clifford announced her candidacy at the beginning of January. And, as of February 5, WEAC had not given any money to the Clifford campaign. Perhaps it was just noted in a newsletter or memo sent only to teachers?

It doesn't appear the MCLC has formally endorsed Clifford, although its sister organization -- the Wisconsin AFL-CIO -- has done so and donated $5000 to Clifford's campaign. The MCLC, for its part, does have a couple of pieces on its website that go after Ziegler, which certainly could be construed as an implicit endorsement of Clifford.

However, that said, I couldn't find anything about the MCLC -- or, for that matter, the WI AFL-CIO -- being a vocal opponent of the school voucher program, let alone advocating for its elimination.

And, in the end, I still haven't seen any evidence that gets close to buttressing the argument that "Clifford's backers include many people and groups who oppose the school choice program." It seems, at the most, that the vast majority of Clifford's backers actually don't have a public position on the program at all.

LATE UPDATE: I just heard from another person that WEAC has recently endorsed Clifford and donated to her campaign. Whether this alone means "many people and groups" remains in question.

LATE LATE UPDATE: The latest campaign finance figures are out, and it appears I'm caught a bit with my foot in my mouth. If I would've seen this morning that WEAC subsidiaries have shelled out around $35,000 to Clifford's campaign in the last couple of weeks, I definitely would have kept my trap shut about the JS article line.

Although I still don't think the line is entirely fair or accurate -- the vast majority of Clifford's supporters are still not active voucher opponents -- the line got a whole lot more justifiable with the WEAC donations.

This is why I should stick to policy.