BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Voting against

40 comments on Voting against

Voting against

: Have we ever seen an election in which so many people are voting against rather than voting for a candidate? Sure, we’ve seen many when voters lament they’d rather vote for “none of the above.” We’ve seen a lack of enthusiasm. But how long has it been since we’ve seen this much antipathy toward each candidate in turn. The left has been in full anybody-but-Bush swing for months; MoveOn has made that its rallying cry; even the DNC put people on the street not to push voting for Kerry but to push voting against Bush. And similarly, on the right, we’ve seen an often vitriolic effort to get people to get out to vote against Kerry. This is not a campaign of what we used to call constructive criticism. It could be that these two candidates bring out the bile in us. Or it could just be that this is close, so people have more reason to fear the person they don’t like will win (though they could just as easily have the hope the person they do want will win). So here’s my question:

Is there a poll that indicates whether voters are more motivated by voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate?

40 responses to “Voting against”

  1. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    “How many people voting against a candidate” is a pretty big assumption until the actual election. If Kerry loses big, for instance, it may turn out that there aren’t even as many ABB voters as we’ve been led to believe.
    The suggestion that as many Bush voters are only voting against Kerry is projection. While I’m horrified at the prospect of a Kerry presidency, that’s simply because he is in fact such an abysmal candidate. I would be as likely to vote for Bush against a more reasonable Democratic candidate, simply because I am one of those “brainless, mindless, etc” voters who thinks that Bush has done a relatively good job under the circumstances.
    That doesn’t mean I’m a brainless partisan; if I thought Bush had done a poor job, I would certainly be happy to vote for an appropriate Dem leader like… hmm… the field is kind of thin these days… but I might give Lieberman a chance, who is at least his own man, understands the threat of terrorism, and doesn’t sway with the political wind. Zell for sure, if he was a leader in his party, instead of an ostracized conservative. On the other hand, I think you would be hard-pressed to find any ABB voters who would consider *any* Republican candidate to be anything less than the spawn of Satan.
    In any case, the absence of strong choices in the Democratic field at the moment doesn’t mean that we’re voting necessarily *against* Democrats as a party, although I fear they are going to take another 2002-style pounding this November.

  2. too many steves Avatar
    too many steves

    Not sure if the link still works but I ran across this recently:
    “The Fox News poll asked Kerry supporters if their vote for the Democrat could best be described as motivated by support for Kerry (41 percent) or by opposition to Bush (51 percent). By contrast, Bush voters emphatically say, by 82-13, that they are voting for the president rather than against the challenger.”
    If you care, the rest is (was) here: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28562.htm

  3. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    Jeff,
    Take a look at this:
    “Roughly 7 in 10 Bush supporters said they’d vote for him simply because they like him, and only 1 in 10 said they’d back Bush because they dislike Kerry. By comparison, just 4 in 10 Kerry voters said they’d vote for him because they like him, while 3 in 10 said they’d do so because they dislike Bush.”
    http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/9714974.htm

  4. Mithras Avatar
    Mithras

    Here’s 7 good reasons to vote Kerry.

  5. Ric Locke Avatar
    Ric Locke

    “Is there a poll that indicates whether voters are more motivated by voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate?”
    It’s a regular feature of several of the polls, especially Gallup and Pew, though the MSM rarely reports it because (a) it’s a bit complex, so they consider their consumers too stupid to understand it, and (b) so far it reflects well on Bush.
    Since Kerry became the candidate the numbers have been roughly consistent: two-thirds of Bush supporters are voting for Bush, two-thirds of Kerry supporters are voting against Bush.
    I’m an affirmative supporter of Bush, and I didn’t understand the ABB component until Democrats selected their candidate. Tell me: with yellow dogs in such abundant supply, how in the name of God (TBAM) did you guys end up with John F. Kerry?
    Regards,
    Ric Locke

  6. Mike G Avatar
    Mike G

    Mithras, that speech would include many good reasons to vote for Kerry, if I believed he believed in them enough to actually stick with and do them, and had the political skills to get them through Congress, sell them to our allies, etc.
    To get back to Jeff’s point– this election may well be the reductio ad absurdum of focus group-driven politics. It’s sort of like what has happened in commercial radio– they’ve gotten so good at identifying what the core listener wants, removed every possible idiosyncrasy that might tempt switching channels, that they’ve chased him to the ground, and in the process made radio utterly unbearable to anyone who isn’t the core listener. And by nailing their 10% perfectly, they’ve driven the other 90% out to CDs, Satellite Radio, iPods, etc.
    In politics, that means both sides are pandering so hard to their bases, so afraid to say anything that might give Focus on the Family or the teachers’ unions a reason not to turn out, that they are incapable of reaching the middle– and this at a time when the middle is larger than ever. Of course, as this is a two man race, some of those middle folks will eventually hold their noses and vote for somebody, and so far Bush has a slightly better hold on them (the war on terror is so important that all the other shit can be tolerated) than Kerry (Bush is terrible and four years of me probably wouldn’t be that bad). But in both cases it’s a highly negative appeal, on a par with the famous line “Vote for the crook, it’s important.” Compared even to the ability of Reagan to attract Democrats or Clinton to attract Republicans (which was more truthfully the ability of both Reagan and Clinton to attract Catholic swing voters in rust belt states), neither Bush nor Kerry has much center appeal and both are mainly fighting a game to hold on to their bases.

  7. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    And here are 10 good reasons to not vote Kerry.
    http://www.bushcountry.org/john_kerry/c_083004_jbowden_vote_kerry.htm

  8. Sterling Avatar
    Sterling

    Jeff, I know a LOT of people who will be voting for Bush, but not one of them has told me it’s because of antipathy for Kerry. Kerry is something of a non-entity – he simply doesn’t enter the calculus of the Right.

  9. Nahanni Avatar
    Nahanni

    Jeff,
    “Is there a poll that indicates whether voters are more motivated by voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate?”
    There are plenty, most of the major polls do. Though you have to actually read the poll data in detail to get the answer you seek.
    Personally, I know of no one who is voting for Bush as a “vote against Kerry” and the polls tend to reflect that observation. However, there has always been a certain amount of “anti” voting in all elections.
    “This is not a campaign of what we used to call constructive criticism.”
    Talk to the Democrats about that one. As a former Democrat I have been truly disgusted by my former partys behaviour for the last FOUR damn years. And this election cycle takes the cake!
    You also made a mistake in your post. Moveon.org and the DNC are not seperate entities. Moveon.org is a 527 that pretends it is independant but in actualty works in conjunction with the DNC. Just go to Kerry and the DNC websites and look up all the different events they have held in conjunction with one another. The Hungarian and one of the largest contributors to moveon.org George Soros is also a very good personal friend of the Kerrys, too.

  10. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    Kerry says:
    “Al Qaeda shouldn

  11. petetheelder Avatar
    petetheelder

    I am a Bush voter who agrees with several other commentators here. I agree with Carsonfire that I think Bush has done a fairly good job, but would give a moderate/conservative democrat hawk like Lieberman a chance and might even vote for one. I am also like Ric Locke in that I do not understand why the Democrats nominated Kerry. My guess is that the ABB Democrats do not get that their best chance to win was to nominate a level headed, steady hawk and they honestly do not get that most moderates do not hate Bush like they do.
    There are lots of areas that conservatives like me are unhappy with Bush about and good moderate or conservative democrat could have gotten my vote over, but Bush gets the biggest issues right.

  12. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    I propose going beyond a poll question.
    Let

  13. J.R. Avatar
    J.R.

    And similarly, on the right, we’ve seen an often vitriolic effort to get people to get out to vote against Kerry.
    Can you cite any examples of this effort? I simply haven’t seen or heard any of it. It’s a pretty tough sell to convince me that the right is as riled up as the anybody buy Bush crowd. It’s simply not the case.

  14. Pete Guither Avatar
    Pete Guither

    What is really needed is a “None of the Above” option in voting, and I’m not just talking about national races.
    The idea is that if “None of the Above” wins (it would be rare, but possible), then a special election must be held for that race, and none of the previous candidates would be eligible to run in the special election.
    I think such a provision would actually cut down on negative campaigning.

  15. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    “The Pew poll found that six in 10 Kerry partisans considered their position more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, while 78 percent of the president’s supporters said they were more for Bush than against his opponent.”
    Source

  16. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    By my count, that’s 3 different sources in these comments that push back hard on any Democrat contention that Bush voters are voting against Kerry as much as Kerry voters are voting against Bush.
    I would venture to say that in 2000, the tables were turned. Democrats were voting for Al Gore and Republicans were voting against Al Gore.
    If true, is this an incumbent thing?

  17. MWB Avatar
    MWB

    Honestly, though. Does it really have to be one or the other? I was pro-Bush before I was anti-Kerry. Now I’m both. Hey! Whattayaknow? I’m nuanced!

  18. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Good point, Brett. When the challenger is less known, it would naturally become more a matter of voting for or against the incumbent. It could be that all we’re seeing is a dramatic amplification of that tendency.
    I mean, I wound up voting *against* Al Gore in 2000, but it was simply because I felt that he was not right for the job, judging from the debates. And although I voted *against* Gore, personally, I didn’t feel the need to go out and convince other people to do the same, and I didn’t think it was necessary to convince other people that Gore was Hitler, etc. The emotional intensity may be what is so different this time around.
    If that’s the case, though, I think it still shows that people wanting to believe Bush voters are just “voting against Kerry” are guilty of projection.

  19. OF Jay Avatar
    OF Jay

    I can only share from experience, but most of those who I know who want Bush to be president aren’t voting for him because Kerry is the Dem candidate; they’re voting because they like W.
    Then again, since when was personal opinion culling considered scientific?

  20. ronbo Avatar
    ronbo

    Sorry, Jeff, I just don’t see a level of antipathy to Kerry that even approximates the ABB crowd on the other side. Do you really have backup for your assertion?
    Consider that Kerry was nominated expressly because of his perceived ability to beat Bush, not because of his positions on the war, the economy, education, trade, etc. Isn’t that just weird? And is that really mirrored on the Republican side?
    You have long been a voice calling eloquently for a higher tone to the campaign and for that you deserve only praise (and success!). But I think you overstep in trying to make the “pox on both your houses” case. It just doesn’t stand up.
    Sorry to disagree.
    Ron

  21. Rufus Davenport Avatar
    Rufus Davenport

    Gallup did a poll along these lines on 9/21. I managed to get it before they put it in the suscriber only section. Here are the basics. They asked respondents an open ended question of listing the one or two reasons why they are supporting their chosen candidate. They found that roughly 4% of Bush supporters are voting against Kerry, and around 27% of Kerry supporters are voting against Bush. Another interesting find was that 11% of Kerry supporters are supporting him just because they only support Democrats regardless, while no meaningful amount of Bush supporters gave a similar response about Republicans.

  22. a guy in pajamas Avatar
    a guy in pajamas

    “The left has been in full anybody-but-Bush swing for months”
    I think the left has been in full anybody-but-Bush swing since he was elected. I think this is one reason attacks on Bush’s character don’t work very well. Once you call Bush Hitler, going back and saying he was AWOL is a bit anti-climactic, eh?

  23. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    At least the democracts are more honest in this respect. They hate Bush. These “republicans” voting for Bush have been let down by him on every single part of his platform and yet they continue to vote for his “left-behind” ass. You would think they would learn from the eloquent leader himself: “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me (long pause).. fool me can’t get fooled again”
    Yet they don’t. When this country is all fuked-up in four years, I’ll have the grim satisfaction of saying I told you so. What will you have?

  24. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Franky,
    Your party will run another imature hate campaign and we will have president Gulliani for 4 years.

  25. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Oops, there goes that ol’ elevated tone, again.

  26. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    If only the Republican party would nominate someone serious such as Guilliani, we wouldn’t be in this predicament. The Republican party used to be a party of recognisable principles, often with a libertarian bent, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, limited government etc. How are any of those reflected in today’s party of Ralph Reeds and massive campaigns to ban homosexual marraige?

  27. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Shark,
    Even that “one issue that trumps them all”. Is there any longer any doubt that the invasion of Iraq has made us much, much more in danger of another terrorist attack? Is there any doubt that we’ve created tens of thousands of more terrorists for a war that has not only not increased our security but made us more hated by previously indifferent muslims?
    I know what the standard line is: Bush screwed up Iraq yet he’s the only man who can salvage this disaster of his creating. But does anyone actually believe that type of stupidity?

  28. petetheelder Avatar
    petetheelder

    And as we all know Franky, Bush and the republican controlled congress hve not lowered taxes at all over the pst 4 years.

  29. petetheelder Avatar
    petetheelder

    Franky, a lot of us Bush supporters think it was Saddam who screwed up Iraq, not Bush. And most of the population doubts that invading Iraq made us less safer. Not everyone hates bush as much as you. Most Americans even (gasp!) like him and think he has done a decent job.

  30. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Franky,
    So why didn’t invading Afghanistan inflame muslims (or did it)?
    It seems that the Taliban government was more to their liking and that Saddam, being secular, was not well liked. So why wouldn’t they be more angry about us knocking off the Taliban?
    I think the reason terrorists are poring into Iraq and trying to drive us out is that they see the possibility of taking over the country rather than anger at us for toppling Saddam.

  31. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Robert,
    This may not be the thread for this discussion, but I think you’re right that foreigners are going in to Iraq because they see the chance of taking it over. However, that only accounts for the foreign component of attacks against us there.
    Regarding the difference with Afghanistan. I think most reasonable people across the world saw the link of the Taliban/Osama and the events of 9/11. People who are not intentionaly deluding themselves know there was no such link to Iraq. And further on your point, I’m not particularly interested in what the fundamentalists think, rather it’s the creation of new enemies amongst moderate muslims that preoccupies me. I don’t believe we should antagonise fundamentalists for no reason, but I believe we shouldn’t let them dictate our actions by their likes and dislikes.
    Pete,
    Yes Bush did lower taxes and made sure that our children will pay for it. That does not sound like fiscal responsibility to me. There’s a split within the republican party that will explode in the coming years. The core, traditional republican principles will be mercilessly attacked by the religious right, and it seems like it will be the right who will be victorious. If I was a old-style republican I would get ready for that coming battle.

  32. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Franky,
    Clearly the other component of the attacks against us would reasonably be those Baathists loyal to Saddam who hope to return to power after we are driven out.
    I find it hard to believe that a truely moderate muslim would be converted into a terrorist by our knocking off the Taliban or Saddam. They may be pissed for a while especially if they believe we are there to steal oil or build a pipeline as Micheal Moore and his ilk tells them. They should get over it after it becomes apparent that they can hava a better life without those two repressive regimes.
    But what do I know. I haven’t lived in a dictatorship without free press for decades.

  33. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Thanks, Franky! You’ve helped prove the point that Kerry voters are voting against Bush, and that Bush voters are voting for Bush.
    BTW: if things are so fuked up now, why do you say that you have to wait four years for everything to be fuked up in order to have that “grim satisfaction” of telling us you told us so? You seem to argue elsewhere that everything is fuked up now, so couldn’t you have that grim satisfaction right away? Because if you can’t indulge in that grim satisfaction, then apparently things aren’t fuked up, in which case we made the right decision four years ago, and your prediction of things being fuked up four years from now is merely conjecture on your part.
    Make up your mind, because I wouldn’t want you to have to wait for grim satisfaction tomorrow that you could have today.

  34. Andrew | BB Avatar
    Andrew | BB

    I think it’s amusing that many of the Bush supporters don’t understand why Democrats nominated Kerry.
    Isn’t that rather an obvious point – otherwise they would be Democrat voters
    It is even less suprising that a Bush supporter “would” vote for Lieberman or Zell if they were Democratic candidates. Again, rather obvious.
    Imagine Democrats (or Republicans) picking a candidate on the notion that they could beat the other candidate (as rather flimsily mentioned above). Why would a party do that?
    Before his recent twists and turns of party of personal integrity, McCain would have been a Republican I could vote for. Powell, too. Their common thread is an integrity over nonpartisanship and a desire to work together to find solutions.
    Bush only voiced that uniter not a divider line – and suckers bought it. A lot of people disliked Bush in 1999-2000 because he was a product, packaged to us. He had nothing but a name and money and it got him to the presidency.
    I voted for Dean in the primary because of his passion. Because I figured he’d be laser-focused on finding a solution in Iraq. That was in February.
    I’m voting for Kerry because he’s a thinker, because he’s smart and (doggone it, no, no sorry) he will be able to do more than Bush and his team to fight terrorism. And not only fight brutally, but do so effectively.

  35. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Carsonfire,
    What we’re seeing now is just the beginning. No one really knows exactly where this train is heading at this point, suffice to say it only gets worse from here on out. Of course with some that may provoke some introspection, some re-evaluating of previous decisions. I just thank God we have a president who “will stay the course” (what exactly does that mean when our very presence is one of the most incendiary factors of the present crisis? Please some one let me in on that little secret)

  36. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    Andrew, I have no idea what you just said. Seriously.

  37. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Franky: “What we’re seeing now is just the beginning. No one really knows exactly where this train is heading at this point”
    Oh my god, Bush is the Boogeyman!!!
    Maybe the train is headed out to the country. It might be a nice train, with good food and pleasant sleeping quarters.
    Or it could be a wicked crazy train with blood flying out of the cow catcher and an evil clown conductor racing against doom!
    Either way, I like trains!

  38. Brennan Griffin Avatar
    Brennan Griffin

    There’s a study that claimed to show that voter turnout is more likely when there is a candidate that is hated than if one candidate is liked over another, but both are basically thought to be ok.
    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/voteturn.htm
    I can’t vouch for the rigorousness of the study, but my own experience in New York bears this out. All you had to do to mobilize black and Latino voters against something pre-9/11 was to say that Giuliani was for it. Giuliani tried to pass some stuff reforming the city charter and was spanked by Black and Latino voters who wanted to get rid of him.

  39. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    “Oh my god, Bush is the Boogeyman!!!”
    Carsonfire. Look you’re not Andrea, you’re not Sortelli. You are capable of making reasoned points. Now why would you invent something I didn’t say in my post? Normally that’s the sign of someone who has no argument to make. Now I know you can do better, so try again.

  40. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Actually, my reasoned point was about your style of rhetoric.
    You missed the point of the “grim pleasure” question, as absurd as it was, and came up with a train analogy that I found amusing but was besides the point.
    However, I’d love to amplify on the train theme: we know where the Bush Express is headed, and even though it’s going to be running through dangerous territory, we know it’s going to get us where we want to go. On the other hand, the Kerrynooga Choo Choo keeps changing tracks so much before it even gets out of the station that we don’t know where we’re going, or if it’s even going to manage to stay on the rails.
    Does that prove anything? No, but neither does emotive tirades about what a fukeup Bush is.