This page is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College
Tony Knowles' Message Strategy
The Strategy:
-
In August, Tony Knowles' campaign was mostly positive. He even made a pledge not to make nepotism an issue ("Come on.." 2004). His ads and speeches focused on establishing himself as the veteran who would fight for jobs and health care (Glazer (2) 2004).
-
While Knowles' September ads were negative, they were mostly comparative. In October, however, ads focused more on Murkowski's shortcomings and rarely compared them to Knowles' strengths (Glazer 2004). Knowles even violated his personal pledge and began criticizing Murkowski for accepting her father's appointment ("Come on.." 2004).
Strategic Analysis:
-
Despite his loss, Knowles' message strategy was strategically sound for the following reasons: First, because most registered voters in Alaska are either Republican or conservative independents, Knowles had to avoid issues that would label him as a liberal ("State Profile" 2004). By coming out early and setting the focus on social issues such as jobs and health care, he avoided discussion on his pro-choice and anti-war views.
-
Secondly, Alaska has powerful interest groups. Knowles identified with some of the more prominent groups (such as veterans and small business owners) by emphasizing his past early on.
-
Thirdly, Knowles' negative campaigning was strategically well-executed. By attacking Murkowski with increasing vehemence throughout the race, he never let the campaign lose energy. Also, by bringing up the nepotism issue very late in the race, he avoided having an important attack fade from the voter conscious before November 2. He also avoided allowing Murkowski to defend herself, or worse, come up with similar personal attacks.
Normative Analysis:
-
However, Knowles' campaign shows that strategically sound tactics can conflict with normative standards, especially when negative campaigning is involved. Politicians should value honesty and campaign in a way that allows voters to make a rational choice. Knowles violated this general rule in the following ways:
-
First, no candidate should ever go back on a pledge made earlier in the campaign, especially when doing so is politically motivated.
-
Secondly, candidates should avoid making personal attacks that do not inform the public on how their opponent would perform in office. Murkowski's appointment has little to do with her ability to be a senator.
-
Thirdly, while making increasingly caustic criticisms is a good strategy, it manipulates public opinion in a way that takes away from a voter's ability to choose rationally.
-
Fourthly, comparative ads allow voters to evaluate both candidates more accurately and they increase discourse on important issues; purely negative accusations such as Knowles' October attacks usually do not.
Mac Skelton, Box 6375, Davidson, N.C. 28035
Created 11/14/04; updated: 11/15/04