Election 2014: Who Got it Right, Who Got it Wrong?
Monday, November 10, 2014
Now that the elections in Rhode Island are decided, who had the right instincts during the campaign, who got it wrong -- and what are the lessons to be learned moving forward?
SLIDES: Who Got it Right, Who Got it Wrong BELOW
"From this point forward, third-party candidates should not be taken for granted by either the two major parties, particularly in the gubernatorial race. While the Republican Party may point to Ken Block in 2010 and Bob Healey in 2014 for spoiling their chances for victory, something more seemed to be brewing just under the surface, particularly in 2014," said Rhode Island College Professor of Communications Valerie Endress. "Candidates spend a considerable amount of their campaign cash to test market and create their stylized messages and biting media attack ads. Yet, the candidate who seemed most effective in capturing this campaign season's zeitgeist was Robert Healey."
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTSo who made the correct assumptions? According to Roger WIlliams University Professor June Speakman, both Democrats and Republicans -- for knowing how hard getting the vote would be.
"The campaigns (at least for the Democrats and the Republicans) who worked the hardest on all levels--the air war and the ground game--make the correct assumption that vote would not be easy to come by. With gridlock in Washington, and disenchantment with state government in Rhode Island, voters were more likely than ever to stay home. And the number of votes cast, lower than in 2010 and 2006 midterms reveal that unwillingness to turn out," said Speakman. "The surprising popularity of Bob Healey is further evidence that the mainstream candidates needed to work hard for votes. He walked into the race late, had no advertising, and spent no money. His assumption that he could bank on voter dissatisfaction with the status quo proved correct."
Biggest Surprises?
One of the biggest surprises during the election season was the percentage of the vote that Healey garnered in the general election. In the master lever's last year, voters opted for the Moderate Party option at a rate of more than 300% of the number of registered Moderate Party members.
"There seems to be a real hunger in the electorate for honest, unvarnished, and common-sense talk that comes from the candidate rather than from campaign consultants and internal polls. This is a trend that we're beginning to see, not only in Rhode Island, but nationwide," said Endress.
"The lesson here seems to apply not only to future campaigns, but for the victors who are taking the oath of office in January. After several election cycles and a steady stream of broken campaign promises for economic recovery, voters in Rhode Island seem to be wary of the promise of pie-in-the-sky projections of economic recovery," continued Endress. "From our focus group research conducted at RIC, citizens are telling us they want to hear the bad news along with the good, they want transparency--and not just the illusion of transparency--and they want the new governor be open to new ideas from outside the protected circle of just a few confidants. As one focus group participant put it, "If there is going to be seats at the table, it had better be a very large table and include those whose ideas in this election that made sense to us."
As far as the pollsters were concerned, Speakman thought for the most part that Brown's Taubman Center did a better job than years past -- but no one was able to accurately capture the Healey vote.
"The pollsters did better this time than two years ago, especially in the governor's race. The Brown poll of October 25th which showed the governor's race to be a tie was way off, but with small sample size and large margin of error, the anomalous results are not surprising," said Speakman. "Every poll missed the late and dramatic increase in support for Healey, but that seemed to build day-by-day, right up to Election Day. It's hard to know how polls could have picked it up given current methodology."
Lessons Learned
"We learned mixed lessons about campaign ads. Rhode Island voters were inundated with ads from most campaigns. The tone of many of them was nasty. That may have suppressed turnout, said Speakman, who noted it be "impossible to tell without talking to those who did not vote."
_640_640_90.JPG)
"Nellie Gorbea changed that game with her cheery, positive ads; she could avoid the negative because her opponent stayed off the air," said Speakman. "We learned that Bob Healey could get almost 70,000 votes with no ads at all, probably at strategy that only he can employ."
The fact that Healey spent a nominal amount to get over 20% of the vote didn't discount the continued importance of money in campaigns, according to Speakman.
"We learned that money matters, but doesn't always translate into victory. And outside money matters, too. We saw lots of it coming into the governor's race, in particular, but also to the McKee campaign," said Speakman. "This, of course, means that outside advocacy groups have their eyes on all elections, and seek to elect like-minded politicians everywhere."
Endress offered her thoughts on what the winners need to do now.
"Starting even before January, this should be an election in which the victors begin early to mend fences. Jorge Elorza won the election, but outside of the East Side, Cianci garnered more votes. Gina Raimondo emerged the winner but with less than an absolute majority vote. Elorza needs Cianci citizens on his side, cooperation of the city council, and the same coalitions that propelled Angel Taveras to victory. Raimondo needs the cooperation of the public employee unions, the general assembly, and the majority of citizens who voted against her on her side," said Endress. "The next few years of governing will involve sacrifice as well as promise, and in order to govern effectively, both of these candidates will need help, not only from their friends, but also from those who did not support their candidacy."
Related Slideshow: Election 2014: Who Got it Right, and Who Got it Wrong
2014 had more twists and turns than any election. It had Buddy Cianci making a strategic mistake, an unfunded candidate scoring 21% of the vote for Governor, flawed polling, and so much more. See who made the right moves -- and who made the wrong ones -- in 2014.
Related Articles
- TV’s Role in Political Campaigns Diminishes
- Money Raised and Spent in RI Gubernatorial Campaigns since 2006
- LISTEN: Election 2014: Candidates’ Strengths and Weaknesses
- Election 2014: Candidates’ Strengths and Weaknesses
- Cost of Rhode Island Governor Race Up 500 Percent Since 2006 Election Campaign
- High Profile Endorsements in 2014 RI Election Campaign
- Primary Elections Results Which May Predict the 2014 Outcomes
- NEW: Feds Prepared to Respond to Election Fraud & Voting Rights Abuse
- Ric Santurri: Behind the Numbers in the Providence Mayoral Election
- 2014 Election Coverage: Real-Time Results and Extensive Reporting
- GRAPHIC Election 2014: Democrats Least Likely To Pull Master Lever
- The Election with Biggest Impact on RI - Reed’s Lost Chairmanship
- Ten Things to Watch for in RI on Election Day
- Surprise Winners and Losers for 2014 Election
- GRAPHIC Election 2014: No Mandate for Raimondo as Hodgson and Almonte Get More Votes
