Campaign Messaging Strategies Examples

Many politicians have begun to use direct-to-voter messaging to reach out to their constituents. Cliff Maloney pointed out that using this strategy allows them to shape voter perceptions of their goals without having to deal with tough questions from the press. These strategies are still being tested, but they have the potential to help candidates connect with their audiences and sway their votes. Sanders' Iran town hall would be his third this year if he holds it. His team has already held town hall meetings on health care and inequality, each of which drew 1.5 million viewers.

The so-called "Ferguson Effect," which claims that crime is on the rise as a result of police officers, is another tactic. While this strategy is widely used, it is problematic because it falsely implies that police officers are in charge of preventing crime while also assuming a criminal element. It also has racist overtones and is based on old-school emotional conservative messaging. The "Ferguson Effect" appeals to common sense by combining fear with a strong-father framework.

Disgust is another strong emotion to elicit. Touching something disgusting can contaminate a clean object because disgust is contagious. As a result, rhetorical tagging can turn a clean object into a disgusting object. This strategy is exemplified by the toilet image. Hillary's responses, on the other hand, are designed to make the public believe she is inept and clueless.

NuMTOTs engage in vigorous democratic debate on Facebook, frequently employing Winnie the Pooh and Pokemon memes as public discourse tools. NUMTOTs have recently debated issues such as renters' rights, fair housing policies, public transportation, LGBTQ+ youth shelters, and the policies of 2020 presidential candidates. NUMTOTs, according to Cliff Maloney, could be a powerful tool for Bernie Sanders in mobilizing young voters because of their unique ability to convey political positions on Facebook.

Experiment 1 may have failed due to the decay of framing effects. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of politically-framed messages in actual political participation. The researchers hope to apply their findings to other aspects of politics, including voting and policy advocacy. However, for the time being, these political messaging strategies are in their infancy. So, how can we make them better? We can make better decisions about how we should communicate with our representatives by studying how people think.

Negative framing can increase the likelihood of political action, according to one of the study's most important findings. When people perceive loss, they are more likely to contribute to a cause. Individuals may be motivated to donate to a political organization by a "loss aversion" message. There are, however, a slew of other factors that influence political messaging. Given the universal nature of the effects, these findings are unsurprising. They reduce the likelihood of receiving postcards from Presidents, in addition to negatively framing political messages.

One of the most important findings from this study, as per Cliff Maloney, is that negative framing works much better than positive framing. This is due to the fact that people are more likely to notice negative information than positive information. For example, emphasizing the negative consequences of policy debates has a greater impact on public opinion than emphasizing the positive. People place a higher value on things they already own, so they are hesitant to change them. This is the polar opposite of a positive framing.