This page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College.

John Thune's Message Strategy

Thune's message strategy focused mostly on comparisons between himself and Daschle. While Thune described himself as independent and non-partisan, he says Daschle "doesn't live out here and he doesn't have . . .our values" (nationalreview.com). Thune also linked Daschle to well known liberal democrats by saying "Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Teddy Kennedy, they all vote together" (nationalreview.com). By portraying Daschle as a Senator who shares different values than the people he is representing, Thune effectively made voters think of Daschle as a Washington insider who put his party over his constituents, while describing himself as just the opposite.

Thune also attacked Daschle by saying his voting record was out of touch with the way South Dakotans think. For instance, in his ad "In His Own Words," he shows Daschle stating that he "will not surrender sacred ground. And that includes a woman's constitutional right to choose" (nationalreview.com). With 63% of South Dakotans saying abortion should be illegal, or legal only in cases of rape or incest, Thune is making the case that Daschle's values are out of line with those of South Dakotans (Associated Press 2004).

Strategic Evaluation

According to Steinhorn, political advertising is all about developing narratives of the candidates. For an ad to be successful, it must "brand" the candidate in a way that appeals to voters (Steinhorn 2004). John Thune's campaign message strategy effectively created a narrative about both himself and his opponent. By describing Daschle as a someone who has "gone Washington" and lost touch with South Dakota voters, Thune was able to define his opponent, rather than letting Daschle define himself. In contrast, Thune created a positive narrative about himself, focusing on his independence and connection to South Dakotans on the issues that matter most. In doing so, Thune's message strategy was successful from a strategic standpoint.

Normative Evaluation

Maisel argues that comparisons between opponents are "appropriate and in fact central to the electoral process," while attacks "cross the line into unethical behavior" (Maisel 2002, 49). Maisel says that the difference between comparisons and attacks are that comparisons focus on policy differences, while attacks focus on personal issues that are not relevant to the campaign. Thune's message strategy drew many comparisons between himself and Daschle, but there were few personal attacks, with the exception of Thune's attack on Daschle for buying a house in Washington. However, under Maisel's guidelines, this attack could be considered relevant since Daschle ran partly on a message of being a "fourth-generation South Dakotan." By focusing mostly on comparisons rather than personal attacks, and by limiting attacks to issues that Daschle himself focused on, Thune ran a mostly ethical campaign.

Works Cited & Honor Code

Created by David Crow

Davidson College

Pol 318
Created: 11/15/2004. Last updated: 11/15/2004.