David Albano MC 3510 Report Vitter: The Right Choice Ad 2016 Senate Race

David Albano MC 3510 Political Communication Research Professor York December 13, 2013

Campaign Context The intent of the ad was to mobilize Republican voters. Vitter has been a very forthright conservative Republican throughout his career. He has consistently voted against abortion, samesex marriage and gun control laws. He was rated at a 0% by NARAL for being an extremely prolife politician. Vitter has unfailingly voted for gun rights and was given an A by the NRA. He had voted for a constitutional band of same-sex marriage and calls traditional marriage the most important social institution in human history. He opposes illegal immigration, and has voted against allowing illegal immigrants to participate in Social Security, voted for reporting illegal immigrants who receive hospital treatment and has voted to make English the official language of the United States. He was given a rating of 100% by FAIR, an organization opposed to illegal immigration. In fact, Vitter has voted with his party 89.4% of the time over the past eight years. To help Louisiana, Vitter attempted to introduce legislation in early 2013 that would help oil and gas development, which would garner revenue for Louisiana as an oil and gas state. Vitter also helped write legislation providing billions of dollars to flood prevention, creating projects and work for Louisianans. True to his Republican nature, Vitter has been identified with a Gang of Five. Vitter, along with Lee of Utah, Sessions of Alabama, Cruz of Texas and Inhofe of Oklahoma, have been opposing the passing of recent immigration reform legislation. If passed, this bill could allow temporary immigrant laborers to work in the United States. An influx of workers could potentially mean Louisianans will have a harder time finding work. Ad Development With this in mind, I chose to create an ad that emphasizes Vitters embracement of farright values. Louisiana voters tend to be conservative, and so it will be beneficial to demonstrate that Vitter takes the same position that they do. Because Vitter is a conservative in a conservative state, he puts up favorable poll numbers. Vitter leads in the theoretical Senate race against Kip Holden. Therefore, the best course to take would be to form a positive ad. Positive ads are generally used to encourage members of the sponsored party to vote; it is not employed to persuade opposing party members to vote for the sponsored party. Vitter is already ahead. He has a very good chance of winning if he can mobilize Republicans to show up at the polls to vote for him. While it certainly benefit Vitter to persuade undecided voters, that is not the focus of the ad. I chose to not create a negative ad. While negative ads are typically used to sway undecided voters, there is also the risk of backlash (Ridout & Franz, 2011). If a negative ad is not done correctly, undecided voters and possibly even some Republicans may take the ad as a cheap shot and either vote for Holden, or at the very least not show up to vote. The ad shows three short clips of David Vitter enthusiastically stating, Im David Vitter. The clips are then followed by the question Who is David Vitter? and the song Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle Fly by Aaron Tippin begins to play. The tune is an up-tempo song that speaks of the pride of being an American. While the song plays, bright, colorful photographs of the Mississippi River, construction workers and Vitter by an American flag are shown. Captions about Vitters work for flood prevention, Vitters work against immigration that could limit Louisiana jobs and Vitters commitment to voting Republican appear over each

picture, respectively. A video is then shown of Vitter asking the question, Whos ready to take our country back? When the video ends, the caption Vitter: The Right Choice, Vitter for Senate 2016 fades in. According to Brader, the patriotic music and symbolism should cause viewers to associate the trait of patriotism with David Vitter (Brader, 2006). Because the ad is a positive ad, aimed at mobilizing Republican voters with patriotic cues, the following hypotheses are made: Attitudes H1A: Democrats will hold more negative attitudes towards Vitter after viewing the ad. H1B: Republicans will hold more positive attitudes towards Vitter after viewing the ad. H1C: Independents will hold more positive attitudes towards Vitter after viewing the ad. Traits H2A: Democrats will perceive Vitter as less patriotic after viewing the ad. H2B: Republicans will perceive Vitter as more patriotic after viewing the ad. H2C: Independents will perceive Vitter as more patriotic after viewing the ad. Voting H3A: Democrats will be less likely to vote for Vitter after viewing the ad. H3B: Republicans will be more likely to vote for Vitter after viewing the ad. H3C: Independents will be more likely to vote for Vitter after viewing the ad. Method To gather results for this test, a survey was created for Qualtrics, with the video ad Vitter: The Right Choice inserted. Respondents were asked questions pertaining to their attitude toward David Vitter. They were asked to place their attitude on a scale ranging from 0 to 100, with 0 being extreme negative attitudes and 100 being extreme positive attitudes. Respondents were then asked how they perceived Vitters patriotism. They were asked to rank his patriotism being 1 and 6, with 1 being the view that Vitter is very unpatriotic, and 6 being that he is very patriotic. Next, respondents were asked to rank their likelihood of voting for David Vitter on another 100 point scale, with 0 being extremely unlikely and 100 being extremely likely. Respondents were then showed the ad and asked the same questions. Finally, questions were asked about the respondents demographics. These questions include age, sex and party affiliation. The intention was to see if there was any difference between the respondents answers before the ad was shown and after the ad was shown. By this method, one can see if the survey was effective. There were also survey questions asked about feelings toward Kip Holden, as well as questions about Vitters perceived honesty, warmth, trustworthiness, fairness and morality; however, these responses are not reflected in the above hypotheses.

The survey was not random. A link to the survey was placed on my Facebook wall and nearly all of the 30 responses (n= 30) were gathered from there. Therefore, the responses reflect the attitudes not of the voting population of Louisiana, but of the people my filter bubble is populated with. Because my friends tend to be young white Republicans, an overwhelming majority of the responses are from young white Republicans. However, because the purpose of the ad is to test the effects of the ad on Republicans, the information gathered from the survey can still be very valuable. The information was gathered from running a mean comparison analysis on attitude toward Vitter, Vitters perceived patriotism and likelihood of voting for Vitter both before and after the ad. Results
Table 1.1 Effect of Viewing Positive Vitter Ad on Attitudes Toward Vitter, By Party ID

Democrat
Ad Viewing

Republican 68.52 (25) 74.40 (25)

Independent 81.75 (4) 76.75 (4)

Total 68.47 (30) 72.23 (30)

Pre-Test Post-Test

14.00 (1) 0.00 (1)

Note: Cell entries represent mean Vitter attitude scores on a 100-point feeling thermometer, with 0 coded as negative attitudes and 100 coded as positive attitudes.

H1A hypothesized that Democrats would hold more negative attitudes toward Vitter after watching the positive Vitter ad. H1A is supported. Democrats held more negative attitudes toward Vitter after watching the ad (Md = -14.00). H1B hypothesized Republicans would hold more positive attitudes toward Vitter after watching the positive Vitter ad. H1B is supported. Republicans held more positive attitudes toward Vitter after watching the ad (Md= 5.88). H1C hypothesized Independents would hold more positive attitudes toward Vitter after watching the positive Vitter ad. H1C is not supported. Independents held more negative attitudes toward Vitter after watching the ad (Md= -5.00). Md= mean difference= post-test minus pre-test score

Table 1.2 Effect of Viewing Positive Vitter Ad on Opinion of Vitters Patriotism, By Party ID

Democrat

Republican

Independent

Total

Pre-Test
Ad Viewing

4.00 (1)

4.76 (25)

4.75 (4)

4.73 (30)

Post-Test

3.00 (1)

4.92 (25)

5.00 (4)

4.87 (30)

Note: Cell entries represent mean attitude scores on Vitters perceived patriotism on a 6-point scale, with 1 coded as Strongly disagree that Vitter is patriotic and 6 coded as Strongly agree that Vitter is patriotic.

H2A hypothesized that Democrats would perceive Vitter as less patriotic after watching the positive Vitter ad. H2A is supported. Democrats perceived Vitter as less patriotic after watching the ad (Md= -1.00). H2B hypothesized Republicans would perceive Vitter as more patriotic after watching the positive Vitter ad. H2B is supported. Republicans perceived Vitter as more patriotic after watching the ad (Md= 0.16). H2C hypothesized Independents would perceive Vitter as more patriotic after watching the positive Vitter ad. H2C is supported. Independents perceived Vitter as more patriotic after watching the ad (Md= 0.25). Md= mean difference= post-test minus pre-test score

Table 1.3 Effect of Viewing Positive Vitter Ad on Likelihood of Voting for Vitter, By Party ID

Democrat
Ad Viewing

Republican 76.64 (25) 82.20 (25)

Independent 72.00 (4) 89.75 (4)

Total 74.47 (30) 80.47 (30)

Pre-Test Post-Test

30.00 (1) 0.00 (1)

Note: Cell entries represent mean scores for the likelihood of voting for Vitter on a 100-point feeling thermometer, with 0 coded as the least likely and 100 coded as the most likely.

H3A hypothesized that Democrats would be less likely to vote for Vitter after watching the positive Vitter ad. H3A is supported. Democrats were less likely to vote for Vitter after watching the ad (Md= -30.00). H3B hypothesized that Republicans would be more likely to vote for Vitter after watching the positive Vitter ad. H3B is supported. Republicans were more likely to vote for Vitter after watching the ad (Md= 5.56). H3C hypothesized that Independents would be more likely to vote for Vitter after watching the positive Vitter ad. H3C is supported. Independents were more likely to vote for Vitter after watching the ad (Md= 17.75). Md= mean difference= post-test minus pre-test score

100

90

80

70

60 Democrats 50 Republicans Independents 40

30

20

10

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Conclusion and Recommendations This data shows that the positive Vitter ad was effective. Parts A and B of H1 were supported, and A, B and C were supported in both H2 and H3. As predicted, the viewer who identified as a Democrat reinforced their dislike for Vitter and gave Vitter a lower score on all three tests after the ad was shown. Viewers who identified themselves as Republicans felt more positive about Vitter, a candidate they already liked, after the video and gave him higher scores after watching the ad. The Independents were influenced by the ad and gave Vitter high patriotism and vote-likelihood scores after viewing the ad. The only hypothesis that was not supported was H1C. Independents did not feel more positive toward Vitter after viewing the ad. There are different possible explanations for this phenomenon. Because the response was placed on a sliding feeling thermometer, there is the chance of random error. It is also possible that the Independents in the sample were more Democrat-leaning, as voters who identify as Independent often tend to vote with one party (Keith, 1986). Another possibility is that the Independent viewers placed different emphases on Vitter than Republican voters. For example, perhaps Vitters sex scandals were on the forefront of Independents minds as opposed to his political policies.

This positive Vitter ad was effective at increasing positive attitudes, perception of patriotism and likelihood of voting among Republican and Independent voters. This advertisement should be run in parts of the state with high Republican voters in order to reinforce feelings of positivity toward Vitter. The ad should be run in the middle of the race. The very end of the race is often reserved for negative ads, and it may not be beneficial to run this ad at that time. On the other hand, if the ad is too early in the race, Republicans might lose motivation to vote for Vitter by the time the election comes around. Again, it is important to note that the primary purpose of the ad is to mobilize Republican voters who already have positive feelings toward Vitter.

References Ridout, T. N., & Franz, M. M. (2011). The persuasive power of campaign advertising. Temple University Press. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. University of Chicago Press. Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E., Westlye, M. C., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1986). The partisan affinities of independent leaners. British Journal of Political Science.