Negative Politics

Do negative political advertisements work? That is, do they convince voters to cast their ballots in favor of the campaign running the ads, or do they have an unwanted effect? Oversaturated markets may lead to constituents simply turning off the television or radio when yet another annoying commercial comes on running political claims. Some voters may punish those candidates that run on negative platforms, by either staying away from the polls, or by voting for the other party all-together.

Remember, if you are a candidate running for office, a negative campaign ad will not focus on what you will do in office, but what your opponent will fail to do. You have shifted the focus from you, the candidate to your opponent, the person you don't want people to vote for.

Negative campaigns are not limited to just the big races, like presidential elections and gubernatorial campaigns, either. We've probably all witnessed fierce cat-fights for city council positions, and Parks and Recreation board of director seats. Some would even say that the mud-slinging gets even more personal in the local races. People know each other more intimately. They'll see each other at their kids' baseball games and at the same Rotary Club meetings. So watch it when the gloves come off!

In general, negative political campaigns are characterized by the following:

1. Claims About Opponents' Voting Records

You would think that these statements would be relatively easy to verify, i.e., Mr. White voted against a woman's right to chose 8 times in 2004!!! But as a voter, you should find out the context of the votes, or if a vote actually even took place. Maybe the bill was a rape bill that had nothing to do with abortion rights, and had everything to do with gathering evidence against criminals! It can be easy to manipulate the truth. On the other hand, there may be truth behind the claims that should give you basis for concern - even if the original statement is somewhat inflated (maybe Mr. White only voted against the right to choose 4 times...)

2. Claims About What Occurred During the Opponents' Youth

So many of us make mistakes growing up. Fortunately, most of us do not run for political office! Can you imagine having your past being opened for scrutiny like these public figures? Yes, its true, some of them smoked, and probably DID inhale. I'd figure that many have some illicit sex affairs lurking in closets (male and female... swinging both ways....) But for this information to come out as fodder for negative campaigns, usually smacks of bad taste these days. Unless the person running for political office broke laws - and did it recently - most people would rather forgive and forget. Plus, unless there is good, substantiating evidence, you may not want to go there as an opponent.

3. Claims About What Opponents Will Do If Elected

This is the most popular tactic, by far. And, of course, the most effective, if done right. As shown below, George H.W. Bush won the 1988 election in part by the fear factor of convincing the electorate that Dukakis was soft on crime and would let serious criminals out of prison too easily, too early. At the time of this publication, in the 2008 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still fighting it out for the Democratic nomination. Clinton claims that Obama is not experienced enough and will make mistakes with respects to nationalized health care, the war in Iraq and other issues of national concern.

4. Claims About Opponents' Morals (or Lack Thereof)

This often comes down to one political party versus another. Republicans against Democrats. But although the GOP likes to claim that it has the moral majority, each candidate will break it down, person to person, to show how he or she is morally superior to the other. This is exhausting, of course, for the voters (and the general public who may not even be casting votes in the election!) I think that the basic advice is always the best... keep the eyes on the prize. If you are the candidate, you are the prize. Talk about you, your dedication to worthy causes, and why you should be elected. Forget about your opponent's shortcomings. They will be obvious when all that you do is set forth for everyone to see.

One of the most effective negative political ads was the so-called "Revolving Door" ad run by President George H.W. Bush against Governor Dukakis in 1988. It was created to make the point that Dukakis was allegedly soft on crime and that criminals would be in and out of prison so fast that there would be a revolving door. Why was this so effective? It played on voters' fear of criminals being loose on the streets. A president who would ensure they would be locked up was preferable to one otherwise.

Similarly, the famous "Daisy" advertisement in 1964 led to LBJ's victory. While I am too young to remember the ad, I can certainly remember the fear of the Cold War. I can understand why people would have voted for Johnson to avoid the prospect of nuclear war.

Negative ads certainly can work if you are running for political office. As a consistent voter, however, I can say that I would much rather hear about what you are going to do if elected to office. Only if there are serious shortcomings of concern that should be brought to the public's attention is it worth an ad campaign. In the vast majority of cases, negative political campaigns are simply a matter of one person trying to bring one person down in order to bring him or herself up. In my humble opinion, that doesn't make you a worthy candidate.