My Fellow Americans,

I should be working on my novel-in-progress right now, but I've been chastised for not updating my web journal often enough. Far be it from me to let down The Public, so let me tell you what I've been up to when I haven't been writing The Do Over.

Last weekend, I attended "Campaign Manager College", which was actually targeted at both political campaign managers and candidates/hopefuls. There were a lot of charts and graphs about what kinds of voters in this part of the country dwell upon what kinds of issues; there was some excellent advice on how to manage a campaign and how to develop one; and there were many dubious interpretations of the available data.

You'll recall that about a month ago I had posted a satiric note about how we (mis)interpret data... which ended up getting me in trouble with the very people I least wanted to offend. And, so, allow me to be direct rather than clever:

One of the points that came up during a poll was that residents of the area indicated that they don't like negative ad campaigns. WELL, DUH. Issue number one with this assertion is: what would *any* self-respecting American say if a poll asked them, "Does a negative ad campaign appeal to you?"

But, the problems of polling aside, there is also a misinterpretation of cause and effect. Most campaigns do not start out negative; in general, there is a perception that negative ad campaigns should be avoided. Thus, negative campaigns are only attempted as a last resort, WHEN A CANDIDATE IS ALREADY LIKELY TO LOSE. As a result, you can see a correlation between negative ad campaigns and losing elections. But which one is the cause and which one is the effect? My contention is that the negative ad campaign may not be the cause of the loss; but, rather, that a campaign that appears to be losing is more likely to attempt a negative approach. Once a campaign goes negative, it holds that label as if it had been so right from the beginning.

I spent my high school and undergraduate years in New York State, where a certain governor ran every single one of his campaigns as target practice against his opponent from Day One. (Jeff Bezos loves to say "Today is Day One", which is why I've taken to capitalizing it.) Governor Mario Cuomo never in his political life stood *for* anything; he always ran *against* someone else, or *against* a particular platform. I even remember how he cackled with glee to the press about how one of his opponents had finally had to break down and resort to negative campaigning after he (Cuomo) had successfully managed to derail every attempt by his opponent to actually bring *issues* into the race.

Yeah, yeah, we all hate negative political campaigns, but I'm not convinced that they don't work.

Amazon.com now puts up pop-up windows when you visit their site, advertising one special or another. Pop-up windows are as annoying as telemarketer calls during dinner, but they use this annoying tactic for one reason and one reason only: pop-up windows increase sales. It's true. It's a bona fide fact.

So, market research shows that customers hate pop-up windows. Serious analysis of the data also shows that pop-up windows increase sales. Do voters hate negative ads? You betcha. Surveys show it time and time again. But, as Mario Cuomo (and George H. W. Bush, et al) and others have proven, they can and do win elections.

I have no intention of setting up an e-commerce site that uses pop-up windows. I also have no intention of ever running or being party to a negative political campaign. But I remain unconvinced that neither of these is a viable tactic, when push comes to shove, for achieving one's ultimate goals.

It's a weird, weird world in which we live.

---

Next post, I'll keep you updated on how The Do Over is going....