Of four characteristics tested, the views of respondents of Dion’s leadership remain practically untouched. Before watching the ads, 45% of respondents agreed that Dion “has what it takes to lead Canada”. Following the ads, the number dropped to 42%. At the same time, the number of respondents who disagree with the statement changed from 38% to 43%.
Dion’s perceived aptitude to manage taxpayer money in an ethical and wise manner garners the largest negative impact, as the percentage of respondents who doubt his abilities rises 10 points from 36% to 46% after watching the ads.
The trustworthiness of the Liberal leader to keep his promises also suffers a slight negative impact, as the number of those who express doubts about Dion rises eight points from 38% to 46%. In both cases, the ad has altered the balance of opinion on these measures from a slightly positive perception to a negative one.
The percentage of respondents who do not believe that Dion will improve Canada’s environment increases seven points from 30% to 37% after watching the ads. However, in this case more Canadians (47%) continue to hold a positive view of Dion.
Regionally, the ads were shown to have the greatest impact on viewers in Eastern Canada, particularly in Ontario. The ads were also shown to have a more significant impact on female respondents—both demographics of special interest for the Conservatives.
Those with no firm opinion of the Liberal leader are the most susceptible to the Tory campaign. Over time, the Conservative strategy could prove most effective among undecided voters.
If the goal of an attack ad is too raise doubts, particularly amongst soft supporters, then the above suggests relative success. Dion takes a 7 point hit on the environment, an 8 point hit on trustworthiness, a 10 point hit on ethics and a 5 point hit on leadership. Overall support remains the same, but the ads seem to bring up Dion's negatives, which is a primary goal of these ads. Also, the poll concludes the ads had the most effect in Ontario and women, two demographics critical to the Tories.
I retreat from my earlier conclusion, and I'm not sure how anyone can publish that headline, given the internals. Does that mean the ads were a rousing success? No, and we have other evidence to support that thesis. However, there is some erosion here, the "seeds" argument finds weight. The final line, that the ads could prove effective with undecideds is a key conclusion, because afterall that is the target audience, not hardcore partisans. The goal is too create doubt, while the ads haven't manifested in terms of support, Tories may find some comfort behind the headline.
6 comments:
Attack ads beget attack ads, though in this case, I suspect they are having some measure of effect with voters who might be weary of "all environmental collapse news all the time."
Then again, they have spawned a host of parodies like this one.
Welcome to the world of simplistic poltics.
Control the message, keep it simple and easy to understand, supress and shout down reality.
You can plant the seed but in politics timing is everything. The electorate is too fickle and their attention spans for all things political tends to be short.
You can plant the seed but you still have to prove that you are better than the other guy.
Paul Martin was very negative in the last campaign but it did not get him very far because he had nothing else to offer. Mr. Harper was very negative as well and it was more effective because he also offered simple things people could understand.
This time around it will be different. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives will be negative but they will probably both be offering something to Canadians. So it will be interesting to see what Canadians will choose when the time comes.
"You can plant the seed but in politics timing is everything. The electorate is too fickle and their attention spans for all things political tends to be short."
It will be interesting to see if there is any follow-up on the Tories part before an election call.
As I've said before and I'll say again, it comes down to vision. Cerebrus rightly pointed out to me that we need to make it more obvious to Canadians what liberals have to offer. I think that the two visions of Canada are very different, and that very different things are offered by each party.
Stephen Harper believes that he can Govern by appearance.
*Yet his pale reinstatement of Liberal environmental policies are hardly a competitive offering compared to the Liberals.
*Yet his version of sound economic policies include GST cuts and tax raises for the poorest.
*Yet his vision of child-care is a $100 dollar check in the mail every month.
*Yet his vision of Canada means cutting funds for Women's shelters and literacy.
*Yet his vision of Canada is one of expanding jails and a bloated military, rather than funds for Hospitals, doctors or nurses.
*Yet his vision of Canada's responsibility to First Nations is to say basically, "Fuck you"
Liberals have more to offer the Canadian public than the narrow ideology of Stephen Harper's Reform/Alliance party. We have a different vision of Canada, and we have different things to offer Canada.
We don't own any particular issue in the public's mind, we can only give a different vision and a different set of offerings. I believe that we can cut the Canadian public a better deal. And that's basically what it comes down to.
It is interesting you mention Ontario where it had the biggest impact. That seems where our lead has been cut the most if you take not just the Leger poll, but the SES. Ontario was also the only province in 2004 to switch on mass from the Tories to Liberals in the final days of the campaign and never mind Harris' advertising claiming McGuinty wasn't up for the job seemed to work.
My guess is Ontario is more cautions than others and likes to stick with the devil it knows than the one it doesn't.
Post a Comment