Did the GOP Unconventional Convention Change Your Vote?
Did the GOP Unconventional Convention Change Your Vote?
Flash and Substance: The Political Primacy Effect
Posted Jul 24, 2016
As Cleveland recovers from the circus environment
surrounding the main event of the political season for the GOP, voters
turn their eyes toward Philadelphia, and the Democrats. Given the
allegations and sentiments expressed by the Republicans in Cleveland,
how will Hillary Clinton and the Democrats respond? In court we call
this “rebuttal.” But in politics, conventions provide much more opportunity than merely the chance to respond to allegations.
The Unconventional Convention Candidate
Donald Trump and the Republicans rolled out quite the unconventional convention this week in terms of showcasing a candidate without a political background. Regarding the cast of characters on stage, the colorful lineup of speakers ranged from television stars to a retired female astronaut, to the impressive Trump children, making the event truly a family affair.
Some of the more memorable moments included ex-prosecutor Governor Chris Christie turning the audience into a jury and convicting Hillary Clinton for her misdeeds in office, an exercise that was periodically drowned out by speakers chanting “Lock her up!” Most of convention day two was devoted to excoriating Melania Trump´s speechwriters for lifting portions of Michelle Obama´s speech from 2008. And Ted Cruz´s non-endorsement speech constituted either political sabotage or political suicide (or both) depending on who you ask.
Trump of course, dominated the fourth and final night, taking home the nomination. Whatever you thought of his speech, taking a darker and more ominous tone subject matter wise than many expected, his daughter Ivanka softened out some of the rough edges. A talented orator herself, she hit it out of the park introducing her father, serving as both an eyewitness and a character witness, describing Donald Trump in very glowing terms.
Yet regarding the impact on voters, did any of the speeches and side shows (remember the Trump plane fly-over almost on cue during Ted Cruz´s speech on Wednesday afternoon) change anyone´s mind about who they are going to vote for in November?
Political conventions are unique opportunities to dominate the new cycle. They allow each party to (temporarily) control the political narrative.[1] Conventions are a time for speakers to remind voters about party ideals, as well as define and frame issues of importance to the election. [2]
And they involve political turn taking. Political conventions are opportunities for political parties to take turns controlling massive information release to the voting public, while the opposing party temporarily relinquishes the spotlight.[3] Political conventions thereby provide an opportunity for each side to monopolize the media, resulting in a “one-sided onslaught of campaign information.”[4]
Effectively controlling the stream of public information in this fashion is critical because convention audiences are diverse, yielding the opportunity for the party to energize its base, influence the perception of members of the opposing party, and sway independents.[5]
Philadelphia: Reassurance or Rebuttal?
Donald Trump topped off the convention with a 75-minute speech highlighting the dangers we face as a country. So next week, will Democrats reassure Americans that we are already safer than Trump expressed, vow to make us safer, or both? And how will the decision to play offense or defense impact voters?
In determining how the GOP convention will influence the perceived impact of the Democratic convention next week, in addition to the dynamics of the primacy effect and recency effect, research suggests that the answer is also dependent on the messaging of each party.
Research shows that the persuasive power of convention speeches during the second convention in an election cycle can be tempered by having watched the first convention.[7] Specifically, voters with more exposure to the first convention will be less impacted by the second convention—regardless of preconvention opinions, or political affiliation.[8]
Convention Memorabilia: Positive Messaging, and Future Leaders
Conventions often generate famous (or infamous) sound bites that become part of political rhetoric for years to come. Who can forget George Bush´s “Read my lips: no new taxes.”[9] Convention on stage behavior often makes the history books as well—such as the famous kiss between Al and Tipper Gore.[10]
But what type of words or behavior is most likely to make a difference to voters? When it comes to messaging in general, positive impressions made by a political candidate are more effective than trashing the opponent with negative messaging.[11]
This may be something Hillary Clinton can capitalize upon during the Democratic convention, which would contrast with the amount of time GOP convention speakers devoted to discussing her.[12]
From the Boardroom to Your Living Room: Building Intimacy With Voters
Donald Trump had an opportunity Thursday night to leave the corporate boardroom and join prospective voters in their living rooms—by connecting to the electorate through the issues that matter most to them. Political convention speeches afford voters the chance to gain an “intimate feel” for those seeking elected office.[14] Whether or not Trump accomplished that, as with so many other convention speeches, depends on whom you ask.
Why is all of this important? Because convention speeches are not only viewed by party loyalists, but by independents. [15] Viewing a candidate´s speech allows voters to absorb information through direct observation, rather than second hand.[16] Given that many people consider themselves to be excellent judges of character (true or not), the desire to see for themselves drives consumer viewership of political conventions.
And ultimately, despite the flash and excitement of national conventions, voting for the next Commander in Chief comes down to individual choice, after calm, rational reflection. The next several months will be a test of which candidate can do a better job crafting a message that appeals to both head and heart.
[1] Joseph Cera and Aaron C. Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” American Politics Research 40, no. 1 (2012): 3-28 (6).
[2] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 6.
[3] Joseph Cera and Aaron C. Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages during Presidential Nominating Conventions,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42, no. 1 (2012): 161-175 (161).
[4] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages,” 162.
[5] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages,” 162.
[6] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages,” 161-162.
[7] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages.”
[8] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages,” 173.
[9] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 7.
[10] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 7.
[11] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages.”
[12] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/references-clinton-dominate-republican-co...
[13] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 6.
[14] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 6-7.
[15] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 8 (citing Karabell, 1998; Shafer, 1988).
[16] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 8.
The Unconventional Convention Candidate
Donald Trump and the Republicans rolled out quite the unconventional convention this week in terms of showcasing a candidate without a political background. Regarding the cast of characters on stage, the colorful lineup of speakers ranged from television stars to a retired female astronaut, to the impressive Trump children, making the event truly a family affair.
Some of the more memorable moments included ex-prosecutor Governor Chris Christie turning the audience into a jury and convicting Hillary Clinton for her misdeeds in office, an exercise that was periodically drowned out by speakers chanting “Lock her up!” Most of convention day two was devoted to excoriating Melania Trump´s speechwriters for lifting portions of Michelle Obama´s speech from 2008. And Ted Cruz´s non-endorsement speech constituted either political sabotage or political suicide (or both) depending on who you ask.
Trump of course, dominated the fourth and final night, taking home the nomination. Whatever you thought of his speech, taking a darker and more ominous tone subject matter wise than many expected, his daughter Ivanka softened out some of the rough edges. A talented orator herself, she hit it out of the park introducing her father, serving as both an eyewitness and a character witness, describing Donald Trump in very glowing terms.
Yet regarding the impact on voters, did any of the speeches and side shows (remember the Trump plane fly-over almost on cue during Ted Cruz´s speech on Wednesday afternoon) change anyone´s mind about who they are going to vote for in November?
Advertisement
Convention Psychology: Controlling the MessagePolitical conventions are unique opportunities to dominate the new cycle. They allow each party to (temporarily) control the political narrative.[1] Conventions are a time for speakers to remind voters about party ideals, as well as define and frame issues of importance to the election. [2]
And they involve political turn taking. Political conventions are opportunities for political parties to take turns controlling massive information release to the voting public, while the opposing party temporarily relinquishes the spotlight.[3] Political conventions thereby provide an opportunity for each side to monopolize the media, resulting in a “one-sided onslaught of campaign information.”[4]
Effectively controlling the stream of public information in this fashion is critical because convention audiences are diverse, yielding the opportunity for the party to energize its base, influence the perception of members of the opposing party, and sway independents.[5]
Philadelphia: Reassurance or Rebuttal?
Donald Trump topped off the convention with a 75-minute speech highlighting the dangers we face as a country. So next week, will Democrats reassure Americans that we are already safer than Trump expressed, vow to make us safer, or both? And how will the decision to play offense or defense impact voters?
In determining how the GOP convention will influence the perceived impact of the Democratic convention next week, in addition to the dynamics of the primacy effect and recency effect, research suggests that the answer is also dependent on the messaging of each party.
Advertisement
The party to hold the first convention is motivated to anticipate and
address what they believe will be the points made by the opposing
party, while the party holding the second convention can rebut the
points made during the first convention. [6]Research shows that the persuasive power of convention speeches during the second convention in an election cycle can be tempered by having watched the first convention.[7] Specifically, voters with more exposure to the first convention will be less impacted by the second convention—regardless of preconvention opinions, or political affiliation.[8]
Convention Memorabilia: Positive Messaging, and Future Leaders
Conventions often generate famous (or infamous) sound bites that become part of political rhetoric for years to come. Who can forget George Bush´s “Read my lips: no new taxes.”[9] Convention on stage behavior often makes the history books as well—such as the famous kiss between Al and Tipper Gore.[10]
But what type of words or behavior is most likely to make a difference to voters? When it comes to messaging in general, positive impressions made by a political candidate are more effective than trashing the opponent with negative messaging.[11]
This may be something Hillary Clinton can capitalize upon during the Democratic convention, which would contrast with the amount of time GOP convention speakers devoted to discussing her.[12]
Advertisement
Conventions also allow each party to showcase future party
leaders,[13] a move some say was done through Donald´s sons Donald Trump
Jr. and Eric, given the amount of political content in their speeches.
While daughters Tiffany and Ivanka spoke about their father in glowing,
personal terms no doubt designed to resonate with millennials as well
as the electorate at large, his two sons revealed their passion for
politics. (Although some recognized Ivanka´s political potential as
well, dubbing her “America´s First Female President”)From the Boardroom to Your Living Room: Building Intimacy With Voters
Donald Trump had an opportunity Thursday night to leave the corporate boardroom and join prospective voters in their living rooms—by connecting to the electorate through the issues that matter most to them. Political convention speeches afford voters the chance to gain an “intimate feel” for those seeking elected office.[14] Whether or not Trump accomplished that, as with so many other convention speeches, depends on whom you ask.
Why is all of this important? Because convention speeches are not only viewed by party loyalists, but by independents. [15] Viewing a candidate´s speech allows voters to absorb information through direct observation, rather than second hand.[16] Given that many people consider themselves to be excellent judges of character (true or not), the desire to see for themselves drives consumer viewership of political conventions.
And ultimately, despite the flash and excitement of national conventions, voting for the next Commander in Chief comes down to individual choice, after calm, rational reflection. The next several months will be a test of which candidate can do a better job crafting a message that appeals to both head and heart.
[1] Joseph Cera and Aaron C. Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” American Politics Research 40, no. 1 (2012): 3-28 (6).
[2] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 6.
[3] Joseph Cera and Aaron C. Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages during Presidential Nominating Conventions,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42, no. 1 (2012): 161-175 (161).
[4] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages,” 162.
[5] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages,” 162.
[6] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages,” 161-162.
[7] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages.”
[8] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages,” 173.
[9] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 7.
[10] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 7.
[11] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Conditional Effects of Competing Messages.”
[12] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/references-clinton-dominate-republican-co...
[13] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 6.
[14] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 6-7.
[15] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 8 (citing Karabell, 1998; Shafer, 1988).
[16] Cera and Weinschenk, ”The Individual-Level Effects of Presidential Conventions on Candidate Evaluations,” 8.
Comments
Post a Comment