Why do voters find candidates attractive?

By MICHAEL McKEON

In a course on political parties and campaigns that I took while attending Southern Illinois University, Professor John Jackson made a list of seven key elements in any political campaign. On that list, according to Professor Jackson, the one that was always most dominant in any campaign was the candidate. If a candidate is attractive, he or she can raise money, attract volunteers and, in the end, convince the voters to vote for him or her.

Of course the key word is attractive. What makes a candidate attractive to the voters? In the political campaigns where my firm has been involved, we test to find those reasons. We ask the "horse race" question: "For whom would you vote if the election were held today, Candidate A or B?" If the respondent makes a choice, we ask the reason for making that choice. The responses almost always fall into the following categories:

1. Candidate has done a good job in office.
2. Opponent has done a poor job in office.
3. Personal traits.
4. Like the person.
5. Dislike opponent.

The responses within these categories give a strong indication of what makes a candidate attractive.

1. Candidate has done a good job in office. This response is not necessarily limited to incumbents seeking reelection. The candidate may be an elected official holding a different office or someone whose career has given him or her a high public profile. When respondents give this reason, rarely do they supply specific details on what the candidate has accomplished. Even when respondents are pressed for details, the answers are usually something like "nothing in particular, just an overall good job.'' From our experience these responses don't change even when one of the candidates is running television and radio commercials promoting his or her accomplishments.

2. Opponent has done a poor job in office. Again in this category the poor job doesn't have to relate to the office the candidate is seeking. Although the usual response is "just a poor job in general," respondents do tend to get a lot more specific in this category, and when pressed for some reason why the candidate has done a poor job, they give one. These negative responses can be just about anything from the way employees answer the telephone to something they saw or heard about the office. In cases where an incumbent is seeking reelection to an office they have held for a long time, a very popular reason given for voting for the incumbent's opponent is that the incumbent is doing a poor job. This gives credence to the adage that when an incumbent is seeking reelection, most of those elections are usually referenda on the incumbent.

3. Personal traits. This is one of the more revealing categories when respondents explain why they are supporting a candidate, and their answers usually drift over into responses that they give to questions in the rest of the poll. The responses tend to reflect on a candidate's character, integrity and public persona. Some of the typical positive responses are "speaks well in public," "seems to like people,"

March 1989 | Illinois Issues | 34

"smart," "knows what he is doing" and "she is a hard worker." The negative responses can be brutal. They generally attack candidate's intelligence, ancestry, personal hygiene, physical characteristics, dress and sexual preferences — human and otherwise. Surprisingly, it is not uncommon for a respondent to say that "so and so is as dumb as a box of rocks, but he is better than the other guy.''

4. Like person. This is a catch-all category when the respondent supports a candidate. It is a combination of the good job and personal traits responses. In most cases when pressed for a more specific response, the respondents cannot give one. The answer is usually, "I like her and I think she will do a good job.'' This response comes up quite frequently when a candidate does not have a high public profile but has waged an aggressive media campaign.

5. Dislike opponent. This is usually the response given for voting for the opponent of a long-time incumbent. The answers are usually a combination of the negative personal traits and the poor job responses. They range from "He has been in office too long and doesn't care any more" to "I used to like him, but he sold his office out to special interests." Also many respondents in this category believe that incumbents lose their integrity after serving several terms in office. These respondents give reasons such as: "He is a crook." "He is just in there to feather his own nest." When respondents get specific in this category they can be extremely graphic and highly negative.

One of the interesting aspects of this last category is that a long-time incumbent can dispel these negatives by using good campaign strategy.

One reason for voting for a candidate has diminished over the past 10 years: party affiliation. This is particularly true in high visibility campaigns. The more familiar a voter becomes with a candidate, the less important the political party affiliation becomes. As for endorsements from newspapers or well-known people, the only one we have been able to track as having an effect on a campaign was that of Mayor Harold Washington.

So, what's the answer to the question, what makes an attractive candidate? Various combinations of all the above categories.

Michael McKeon is head of McKeon & Associates, a national polling organization.

March 1989 | Illinois Issues | 35