Poll results: Character trumps policy for voters

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Link
For all the policy blueprints churned out by presidential campaigns, there is this indisputable fact: People care less about issues than they do about a candidate's character.

A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.

Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.

"Voters only look at policies as a lens into what type of person the candidate is," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. That campaign based its voter targeting and messaging strategies on the character-first theory.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults, conducted Monday through Wednesday, found honesty was by far the most popular single trait ? volunteered by 41 percent of voters in open-ended questioning.

The results might have been different had respondents been forced to choose between either issues or character. But this survey allowed people to volunteer any "qualities or characteristics," and a minority seized on issues.

The findings are consistent with an AP-Ipsos poll from September 2004, when 38 percent of voters chose honesty as the most important quality when picking a president. That was more than any other factor. At the time of that survey, a majority of voters found Bush to be honest.

But in an AP-AOL News poll conducted in January, only 44 percent said they thought Bush was honest.

His decline in the category of trust is widely attributed to the fallout from the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The drop is most prominent among people 30 to 39, suburban women, married women with children and people with household incomes in the $50,000 to $75,000 bracket.

Bush's collapse in the character test should serve as a warning to the 2008 presidential candidates. Character matters, voters say, and they already are sizing up the field.

Among Republican and GOP-leaning voters, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) 35 percent to 22 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had 14 percent, followed in the single digits by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas.

Giuliani leads the pack among voters who look first to a candidate's character, issues and leadership qualities. The only area when McCain pulls even to Giuliani is among voters who cite experience as the most important quality or characteristic in a president.

Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York leads with 38 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois at 21 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore is at 14 percent and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards is at 10 percent. The rest of the field is in single digits.

Clinton leads Obama among voters who mention honesty and strong character, compassion, intelligence and stance on issues. The former first lady is tied with Obama among the small number of respondents who value experience, a surprise given Obama's short stint in Washington.

Policies may not get candidates elected. But politicians can use their policies to connect with voters at a gut level.

Former President Clinton's book-length economic blueprint showed voters he would work hard to tackle problems they cared about. His empathy was a winning trait in 1992.

Bush won re-election in 2004 when most people were opposed to the war in Iraq. He used the against-the-grain war policy to cast himself as a strong, decisive leader. It worked until voters started doubting his honesty and competence in 2005.

"Modern day presidential campaigns are essentially character tests, with character broadly defined to encompass a mosaic of traits ? looks, likability, vision, philosophy, ideology, biography, communications skills, intelligence, strength, optimism, empathy, ethics, values, among others," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane of California.

Steffen Schmidt, political science professor at Iowa State University, said the 2008 field faces many challenges in the character contest. The top half-dozen or so candidates have had their honesty or integrity called into question already, including relative newcomer Obama.

"The problem is it's almost impossible to find a human being who lives up to the expectations of voters. Everyone has things they've done that they're not proud of," Schmidt said. "Nobody's character is perfect."

The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. For Democrats and Republicans, it was 4.5 percentage points.
This would explain why Bush won twice, he seemed a likable and honest guy.
Meanwhile Kerry came off as a flip-flopper (voted against the war before I voted for it) and the swiftboat attacks. Kerry is just not a likable person, Bush is.
Same with Clinton, very likable guy.
This would seem to be a good sign for Obama, nice likeable guy, and bad for Hillary, cold hearted bitch.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.
You're right! That explains why Bush won...
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
Politics is a huge popularity contest. One of the better things a candidate can have is a hot wife.

And when people are saddled with governmental mismanagement and pay the price of ridiculous incessant wars.... you reap what you sow.
 

fallensight

Senior member
Apr 12, 2006
462
0
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
If the Pol was true, would any Repub get elected?:p:evil::light:

It holds true. They run around call people 'liberals', call themselves 'moral' and that they support 'family values' without actually defining what the terms mean.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: fallensight
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
If the Pol was true, would any Repub get elected?:p:evil::light:

It holds true. They run around call people 'liberals', call themselves 'moral' and that they support 'family values' without actually defining what the terms mean.

Actually I think that's key in making this strategy work. Not only does character trump policies, but it's EASIER to make a character argument than a policy one. It's fairly easy to paint a tapestry of "what kind of guy you are" without actually having to DO anything in particular, but once you start nailing down just what exactly you do that makes you a good guy, you're required to do specific things that could make politics more difficult. Don't get me wrong, creating that image requires a lot of difficult political magic, but it requires far less substance behind it if your image is based on, well, image more than specific things.

It's tempting to say that this works because people are stupid, but it's actually an important point. In any position, you can have a lot of negative qualities and still be decent at your job...but you can't recover from being a bad guy. That's why Bush beat Kerry, despite the fact that any direct comparison of the two made Kerry look far more intelligent and presidential, because for all his good qualities, Bush came off as more trustworthy and more like a good guy. Voters reasoned that he might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you can hire smart people to work for you, you can't hire a conscience.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,569
9,810
136
Originally posted by: Stunt
Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.
You're right! That explains why Bush won...

Gore and Kerry had character in the negative range, to where it drove people away. Bush was elected as the lesser of two bad choices, not because he was any decent.

I know many people vote on party lines, but for the undecided voter I?m merely explaining how this article could relate.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Link
For all the policy blueprints churned out by presidential campaigns, there is this indisputable fact: People care less about issues than they do about a candidate's character.

A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.

Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.

"Voters only look at policies as a lens into what type of person the candidate is," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. That campaign based its voter targeting and messaging strategies on the character-first theory.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults, conducted Monday through Wednesday, found honesty was by far the most popular single trait ? volunteered by 41 percent of voters in open-ended questioning.

The results might have been different had respondents been forced to choose between either issues or character. But this survey allowed people to volunteer any "qualities or characteristics," and a minority seized on issues.

The findings are consistent with an AP-Ipsos poll from September 2004, when 38 percent of voters chose honesty as the most important quality when picking a president. That was more than any other factor. At the time of that survey, a majority of voters found Bush to be honest.

But in an AP-AOL News poll conducted in January, only 44 percent said they thought Bush was honest.

His decline in the category of trust is widely attributed to the fallout from the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The drop is most prominent among people 30 to 39, suburban women, married women with children and people with household incomes in the $50,000 to $75,000 bracket.

Bush's collapse in the character test should serve as a warning to the 2008 presidential candidates. Character matters, voters say, and they already are sizing up the field.

Among Republican and GOP-leaning voters, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) 35 percent to 22 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had 14 percent, followed in the single digits by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas.

Giuliani leads the pack among voters who look first to a candidate's character, issues and leadership qualities. The only area when McCain pulls even to Giuliani is among voters who cite experience as the most important quality or characteristic in a president.

Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York leads with 38 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois at 21 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore is at 14 percent and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards is at 10 percent. The rest of the field is in single digits.

Clinton leads Obama among voters who mention honesty and strong character, compassion, intelligence and stance on issues. The former first lady is tied with Obama among the small number of respondents who value experience, a surprise given Obama's short stint in Washington.

Policies may not get candidates elected. But politicians can use their policies to connect with voters at a gut level.

Former President Clinton's book-length economic blueprint showed voters he would work hard to tackle problems they cared about. His empathy was a winning trait in 1992.

Bush won re-election in 2004 when most people were opposed to the war in Iraq. He used the against-the-grain war policy to cast himself as a strong, decisive leader. It worked until voters started doubting his honesty and competence in 2005.

"Modern day presidential campaigns are essentially character tests, with character broadly defined to encompass a mosaic of traits ? looks, likability, vision, philosophy, ideology, biography, communications skills, intelligence, strength, optimism, empathy, ethics, values, among others," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane of California.

Steffen Schmidt, political science professor at Iowa State University, said the 2008 field faces many challenges in the character contest. The top half-dozen or so candidates have had their honesty or integrity called into question already, including relative newcomer Obama.

"The problem is it's almost impossible to find a human being who lives up to the expectations of voters. Everyone has things they've done that they're not proud of," Schmidt said. "Nobody's character is perfect."

The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. For Democrats and Republicans, it was 4.5 percentage points.
This would explain why Bush won twice, he seemed a likable and honest guy.
Meanwhile Kerry came off as a flip-flopper (voted against the war before I voted for it) and the swiftboat attacks. Kerry is just not a likable person, Bush is.
Same with Clinton, very likable guy.
This would seem to be a good sign for Obama, nice likeable guy, and bad for Hillary, cold hearted bitch.

Another Repuglican woman hater. How unusual....

:roll:
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Another Repuglican woman hater. How unusual....

:roll:
Or, ya know, he doesn't like Hillary. But don't let common sense stand in the way of your generalizations and assumptions.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
[ ... ]
It's tempting to say that this works because people are stupid, but it's actually an important point. In any position, you can have a lot of negative qualities and still be decent at your job...but you can't recover from being a bad guy. That's why Bush beat Kerry, despite the fact that any direct comparison of the two made Kerry look far more intelligent and presidential, because for all his good qualities, Bush came off as more trustworthy and more like a good guy. Voters reasoned that he might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you can hire smart people to work for you, you can't hire a conscience.
For me, at least, Bush came off as dishonest and arrogant right from the very beginning, in the 2000 primaries. He seemed like the kind of guy one would find on a used-car lot (and certainly hasn't done anything since then to improve that image). One of the reasons I came to P&N when it started was to find out what people saw in him, because I couldn't see it, not at all.

As far as Kerry is concerned, while I always thought he was about the worst of the Democratic contenders, I found him clearly preferable to Bush. The "flip-flop" cries and swiftboat smears were transparent to anyone with more than two working neurons and at least a fraction of a clue ... or so I thought.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Another Repuglican woman hater. How unusual....

:roll:
Or, ya know, he doesn't like Hillary. But don't let common sense stand in the way of your generalizations and assumptions.

Yeah, well come up with a different term then. "Cold hearted bitch" sounds misogynistic. But don't let that stand in the way of your thinking clearly and offering a smart response.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The only reason the right hates Hillary is because she dared to have political aspirations of her own, unlike the current First Lady wall-flower who only dares come out in public to read to children or hand out freshly-baked brownies.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
What the OP doesn't offer is that the perception of character is easily manipulable. It's a subjective quality, and can therefore be wildly inaccurate in the hands of professional image crafters. "Character" and "appearances" are largely interchangeable terms, unfortunately.

Repub spinmeisters are already at it, attempting to shape the public perceptions of Democratic presidential hopefuls. They'd very much like to pick their own opponent, for obvious reasons, and will put forth a strong effort to manipulate opinion to accomplish just that...

Given the available field of repubs, it's a smart move. They'll have a lot more trouble creating a positive image appealing to the Bush constituency from the current situation and personal baggage of their own hopefuls... They'll need something more along the lines of a masterful illusion, mass hypnosis, which is why they're squirming so desperately now...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.

Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.

This poll just serves to illustrate how ignorant the average U.S. voter really is. They've got their priorities all backwards, not to mention the fact that you can't judge a candidate's honesty/integrity by simply looking at him/her or listening to a sound bite. My theory is that the average voter is intentionally disconnected from current events and current political issues because they tune out politics until its time to vote. Then, when forced with a choice, they try and make a visceral gut-level check of which candidate they find most appealing.

The moral of the story? If you're going to vote, take some time to understand the candidates and the issues.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This would explain why Bush won twice, he seemed a likable and honest guy.
Meanwhile Kerry came off as a flip-flopper (voted against the war before I voted for it) and the swiftboat attacks. Kerry is just not a likable person, Bush is.
Same with Clinton, very likable guy.
This would seem to be a good sign for Obama, nice likeable guy, and bad for Hillary, cold hearted bitch.

I always find it amazing that people vote for someone based on nothing else then a nice smile. It takes a lot more then a "down home" attitude and a flashy smile to fool me.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,569
9,810
136
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The moral of the story? If you're going to vote, take some time to understand the candidates and the issues.

They're not going to do that and likely never will. The evidence is in the attack ads.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The moral of the story? If you're going to vote, take some time to understand the candidates and the issues.

They're not going to do that and likely never will. The evidence is in the attack ads.

Glad to see you've given up so easily.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,709
6,266
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What the OP doesn't offer is that the perception of character is easily manipulable. It's a subjective quality, and can therefore be wildly inaccurate in the hands of professional image crafters. "Character" and "appearances" are largely interchangeable terms, unfortunately.

Repub spinmeisters are already at it, attempting to shape the public perceptions of Democratic presidential hopefuls. They'd very much like to pick their own opponent, for obvious reasons, and will put forth a strong effort to manipulate opinion to accomplish just that...

Given the available field of repubs, it's a smart move. They'll have a lot more trouble creating a positive image appealing to the Bush constituency from the current situation and personal baggage of their own hopefuls... They'll need something more along the lines of a masterful illusion, mass hypnosis, which is why they're squirming so desperately now...

Yup, both the Pro-Candidate and Anti-Candidate camps can easily mold the Character of a politician. Con Artists love people who judge "character" as well for the very same reason. It's a piss poor way of choosing a Leader(s). I think the proof is in all the scandals that have recently come to pass. People still think DeLay is/was a great guy, despite him being a common Con Artist.