POLL: 47% less likely to vote for candidate if aided by ads paid for by anonymous business groups

[jefferson_dem]

No wonder Rove is wigging out. Wake up media toolboxes and members of the insufferable beltway punditocracy! This is NOT a non-issue.

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rUtERn9eLmGU

[FSogol]

1. If Rove sez it is a non-issue, we need to discuss it more.

:shrug:

[Mimosa]

2. Wow, that's good to know

I used to hate those 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' ads.

[emulatorloo]

3. "media toolboxes" - Brilliant!

People don't like the concept of "anonymous" in this context

[rucky]

4. almost every section of this poll is worth its own discussion.

Good stuff, and some puzzling contradictions.

Things look positive for the Dems. People are generally supportive of the policies passed, but not the direction the country is in. People generally like/dislike both parties about equally. Support for obama in general is positive, but broken down by individual policy, each item is negative.

then the real head-scratcher. people think things will get better if Republicans take Congess:

_________________________________

If the Republicans win control of the U.S. Congress in the November elections, do you think things would
get better or worse for each of the following?

Category | Better | Worse | No Change | Not sure
The U.S. economy 50 36 12 2
Unemployment 45 35 16 4
The federal budget deficit 44 38 15 3
Cooperation between parties in Congress 30 45 20 5
Small businesses 54 33 10 3
Large corporations 69 13 13 5
The middle class 46 40 12 2
The wealthy 69 11 16 4
Banks 57 18 18 7
For you personally 41 29 27 3

[AmericanMan1958]

5. This Poll

reveal that 45% of those polled never supported this President.
So keeping this in mind we still have work ahead of us, but there are targeted issues we need to push.
keep up the good work.

[unblock]

6. 47% CLAIM TO BE less likely to vote for candidate funded by anonymous business groups

this is one of many topics for which polling is of limited use.

most importantly, this does NOT mean that people *ARE* less likely to vote for a candidate funded by anonymous business groups. it means that people THINK they are less likely to vote for a candidate funded by anonymous business groups.

this, in turn means that an attack ad denouncing your opponent as being funded by anonymous business interests might be somewhat effective.

however, crucially, it does NOT say that this information is MORE damaging or LESS damaging to your opponent than the advantage your opponent gets from the advertising from the anonymous business groups.


so if, as a candidate, you're thinking of getting the help of anonymous business advertising, this poll tells you that you might open yourself up to attack on that basis, but it still might pay to run those ads anyway.



a similar topic is negative advertising. when asked in the abstract, most people claim to be turned off by it and would be less likely to vote for the candidate USING the negative attacks, rather than being less likely to vote for the TARGET of the negative attack. but if you SHOW them a negative attack, then ask them, they're also less likely to vote for the target -- because they see the actual attack and can't help but believe (or at least suspect) that the attack is true and damaging. moreover, if you look at actual BEHAVIOR (as opposed to polled claims of future behavior), negative ads are often very effective.