Is going Negative a Positive ?

In the last few days before the election it seems like there are no political campaigns left that have not gone negative. The research seems to conclude that "going negative" whether you like it or not works. Do negative political ads simply educate an uninformed electorate as to a candidates shortcomings or do they lead to further disillusionment and apathy among voters?

MRB:

I PAY NO ATTENTION

And I'm sure all of you are saying, "Yeah, right." But I really don't watch the ads for the simple reason I do not own a television and when I do watch it is only for a few minutes at a time at a friend's home or my favorite pub. I took an overnight trip recently and watched more television in the motel room in one night than I'd seen in the past year and then it was only the movie channels on cable. Let me tell you I don't miss any of it.

But I do hear about the political ads from friends and colleagues and I don't like what I hear. I also see them from particular candidates and their challengers that I follow on the internet. They are all obnoxious. Which makes me ask myself how that affects my decision making process. As must be obvious, I and my two colleagues, take more than just an average interest in the political process so I feel very confident when I cast my ballot that I know who is running, what they stand for and, most importantly, what I'll stand for if they get elected (or defeated). I get my information from the print media, both paper and internet, and the dozens and dozens of fliers I have been mailed during this last six weeks. They stack almost two inches high as I write this. They are not as viscious as the television ads.

Who I am concerned about are the millions of voters who have less interest in all of this and just want the blasted election over with so they can get back to their regularly scheduled commercials for another two years. Unfortunately they rely on these random acts of mental violence to help them make honest decisions. And I feel it is they who truly are being cheated by this process. I've been told it has been proven many times that these obnoxious things work. Or do they? I think those millions of voters are wise enough to smell rotting eggs, at least I want to believe that. If you are a registered Republican and hear negativity about a Democrat will you believe it? And if you are a registered Republican and hear a hate ad about your Republican candidate, will you believe that? There are so many ads being flung around I just can't help but feel they are pointless. Really good sport and fun to watch, but pointless. So I just can't believe any study can prove they work as much as the Roves of the world think they do.

I was talking with two friends today over lunch about this. They are liberal and somewhat pollitically astute. They just rolled their eyes, said that they felt the attack ads were particularly vile this year, but then proceeded to tell me about some of their favorites from both sides of the aisle. They discussed them as if they were at an exhibition of paintings and sculpture. They both said that no ad had effected how the will vote on November 7 on any candidate or issue.

But until more voters truly demand serious discourse and serious fact sharing, not lies and innenuendo, from these ads everyone, I am afraid, will have to live with them because we are all told they work. And we believe it.

KJW:

NEGATIVE ADS MAKE ME MORE LIKELY TO VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE BEING ATTACKED BY THE AD

How can I put it ... I HAVE HAD IT WITH NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADS. As a result, I am extremely anxious for Tuesday's election to be behind us so I won't have to watch any more negative political ads. I am even more anxious for the ads to end than I am to see whether Nancy Pelosi can start measuring drapes. And understand that I am definitely very interested in seeing how things will turn out on Tuesday.

Despite my seemingly neverending interest in politics, I am utterly disgusted with the place that political advertising has gone. To me the most over the line example in this election cycle involves a Republican ad which accuses a Democratic candidate for an open House seat in upstate New York of calling a phone sex line from a hotel and charging it to taxpayers. An aide to the candidate, a local district attorney, had misdialed the toll-free number of a state criminal justice services office-a number that indeed was one digit off of the sex line number - and the phone bill showed that the aide had been on the sex line for less than a minute. Nevertheless, the Republican congressional committee ran an ad which accuses the Democratic candidate of using a phone sex line and charging it to the taxpayers. The Republican campaign committee stood by the ad, calling it "totally true".

If I were an undecided voter in the district that ad was being run, the ad in and of itself would have made up my mind. I would definitely vote for the candidate being attacked by that outrageous ad.

Now political reality makes me realize that if I were a registered Republican in that district I would not so easily come to the decision to vote for the Democrat; however, I do believe that it might make me more likely to sit that race out and not vote for either candidate. I do believe that negative advertising increases voter apathy. This mid-term election in particular may very well be one in which voter apathy is particularly high and turnout particularly low.

Nevertheless, once again political reality must be acknowledged. I agree that the research does consistently conclude that negative ads work. Who can ever forget Willie Horton or Michael Dukakis riding around on that tank. Both very effective negative ads which even now years later we all remember vividly.

Somewhere along the way politicians from both parties, even sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, have concluded that being truthful with the public is not necessary.

EJS:

Politics is a dirty business. While poll after poll indicates Americans' preference for positive advertising in political campaigns, the facts on the ground say that those negative ads are extremely effective. Most politicians understand this, and it always plays a large role in the candidates' decision on whether or not to run. Do I really want to have every minute thing from my past dug up? Do I really want to put my family through the neverending character assassinations that play such a prominent role in national campaigning? The larger issue is, are quality candidates turing away from politics due to the negative advertising? Many Americans think that Colin Powell would make an excellent President, but his main obstacle to running is his family, and his concerns about putting them through the grind that is a Presidential campaign. Negative advertising does lead to a diluted candidate pool.

Negative advertising is a permanent fixture in politics. There are really no options to curtail it either, as political speech is also covered by the First Amendment. I am surprised that there have not been more defamation lawsuits over political advertising, but I believe this goes back to my previous point: all candidates know what they are getting into when they jump in the race. Negative ads are also a vicious cycle, where one negative ad elicits another, and so on. And what makes it difficult for candidates to take the high ground is the fear of being pigeon-holed by their opponent before they even have an opportunity to start campaigning hard. This was evidenced in the 2004 Presidential election. Once Super Tuesday passed in March, the Bush/Cheney campaign began framing the debate on the following day, much sooner than most pundits expected. Bush was able to paint Kerry as a flip-flopping East Coast elite liberal who hates the military before Kerry even had a chance to figure out what hit him. Kerry attempted to take the high ground in the Swift Boat campaign, refusing to criticize that group, instead focusing on his version of his military service in Vietnam. Kerry now looks back on this as one of the biggest blunders of his campaign, saying he should have gotten down and dirty with them.

So, while none of us like negative advertising, it is simply a fact of American political life. Our job as responsible citizens is to dig deeper than the superficial ads you see on television, and really find out how the candidates feel on the issues, and to then make an informed decision as to who is best suited for the position.