And the winner is...

Kendrick Meek. The first debate between Governor Crist and Speaker Rubio had been much anticipated, but probably resulted in an unlikely winner: the Democratic nominee (likely Meek). Certainly today both Crist and Rubio will declare that each "won" the debate (and for what it's worth, some of the national press and the local folks here and here believe, as I do, that Rubio performed better). But what is winning? The real winner is the person who receives more votes because of the debate. That "because of" is a pretty difficult standard - largely because there are so many other causal factors at work in voting for a candidate that putting much on a debate is difficult. What can usually be gained from a debate is building Name ID throughout the electorate. It's probably a stretch to think that Governor Crist could really increase his Name ID. His problem is that voters know him, and don't particularly like him. Rubio, despite his budding nationwide reputation (all sorts of "hail the new future of the Republican Party" ideas surrounding Rubio), could stand to gain on Name ID in Florida. But the problem is that Rubio is already winning, and whether he receives 50.1% of the vote or, more likely, puts up some gaudy numbers against Crist, he still wins. And once he wins, he has to face the Democratic nominee - who is likely Kendrick Meek. Yet Rubio often served as a punching bag yesterday for Crist during the debate, undergoing a near constant personal assault. Crist not only tried to tar Rubio with facts (use of a RPOF credit card for personal expenses that were reimbursed and some double billing on airline tickets) - but Crist recklessly put out speculative charges that he (Crist) kept saying that even he (Crist) did not know if they were true (related to tax returns). Who can benefit here? Meek. Meek can follow the fruitful trails led by the Governor and try to avoid Crist's pitfalls.

The Latest Poll, in Perspective

Going Negative

Marco’s from Miami. Charlie hugged Barack. Kendrick hasn’t returned Rangel’s money. Just the latest volleys in what might seem like the season of negative campaigning in the Race for Senate. Yet what should be noted is that (1) negative information about policies, as opposed to personhood, can provide valuable information to voters, and (2) negative campaigning can actually increase voter turnout.

What Rubio’s Senate tenure might look like probably has nothing to do with being from Miami. That cynical and ugly tactic from the Crist camp is the classic smear. See Rubio is slick, because he’s from Miami – like that Scarface character. The Governor’s embrace of the President, while similar, in that it tries to create an association – actually has a policy basis. See Crist will embrace Obama’s policies, because he’s actually embraced Obama. The Ferre accusation leveled at Meek is a little bit more mixed. Ferre is clearly trying to smear Meek by tying him to the tax evasion issues surrounding Rangel – but this is actually an ongoing issue for politicians (what is to be done with “tainted” money?) and one that has spurred other elected representatives to get rid of Rangel money.

When political scientists have investigated the effects of negative campaigning, it turns out to be a double-edged sword. Some amounts of negative campaigning actually increase voter turnout, as partisans, in particular, tend to salivate at the red meat spectacle. But as the amount of negative campaigning keeps expanding, turnout can start to get depressed as independents, in particular, tend to avert their eyes (and votes) when the mud really gets slung. That’s why in a primary, especially a closed primary state like Florida, it makes all sorts of sense to go negative during a primary as primary voters tend to be quite partisan. But in a general election the vitriolic and bombastic tone should really only be used if one wants to dampen turnout (i.e., a more extreme candidate looking to turnout the base).