Newt Gingrich, campaigning in Iowa with his wife Callista, has been the target of negative advertising.
How can this be? How can voters who adamantly hate negative campaigning, have their voting behavior swayed when a candidate is attacked?
The answer is simple: And they work very well… Our brains process information both consciously and non-consciously. When we pay attention to a message we are engaged in active message processing. When we are distracted or not paying attention we may nonetheless passively receive information.
There is some evidence that negative messages may be more likely than positive ones to passively register. First, one of the most important contributors to their success may be the negativity bias. Negative information is more memorable than positive — just think how clearly you remember an insult.
Second, negative ads are more complex than positive ones. Every negative ad has at least an implied comparison…. This complexity can cause us to process the information more slowly and with somewhat more attentiveness. Those days are over and candidates are on their own now.
But make no mistake: However, you have to know you are going to win big if you lay off the attack. The only way to know is with a reputable tracking poll fielded at the right time that surveyed the right voters. You need to knock down your closest challenger to prevent them from being a threat, or you need hit the front runner so that you can move into first place.
Always Keep Your Negatives Truthful Some people think you can make things up about a candidate, repeat it as often as possible, and the voters will believe it. This sometimes works, but it has a horrible downside for the candidate who does it.
If you have to make something up about your opponents, you should not be going negative! You need to be able to cite the vote your opponent made, the statement they said, or position they once had but now changed during the campaign. Not a good idea. The only person whose religious faith your campaign can talk about is yours.
Even then, make sure it matters to the people who will be voting for you. Politicians who get too preachy are viewed with extra skepticism by most voters. Drug addiction in a child is a nightmare too many of the best parents have to deal with in our country.
Now if your candidate has multiple convictions for driving under the influence, you might want to use that in an attack, but test it with a poll first. A mayor I once knew had four drunk driving offenses.
I asked him how that affected him politically.
He said he got more votes the next time because his voters were drinkers too. It is simply a warning to know how voters feel about such things before attacking on that issue.
If you doubt this, look at federal elections for the last forty years. The federal budget deficit and the national debt are major issues with giant repercussions for the United States in the not too distant future. However, the national debt and the deficit are not issues that resonate with voters to make a difference in how they vote.Negative political campaigning has long been a staple of American politics, and now, with the advent of Super PACs, it is being taken to a whole new level.
According to The Washington Post, as of May 20, campaign spending by candidates and Super PACs had already totaled $ million, and 68 percent of that has been negative. Negative political advertisements. David Mark () “Get Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning” Print. The Author of this book edits information from newsgroups into two categories namely: the vivid story which relates to specific groups of people and pallid stories which approach an .
During the campaign, even though she was faced with negative campaigning from her opponent, who aired ads “portraying Fischer as a rancher who sued her neighbor in an attempted ‘land grab,” she “steadily delivered a conservative message,” running a positive campaign focused on .
May 31, · Negative political campaigning has long been a staple of American politics, and now, with the advent of Super PACs, it is being taken to a whole new level.
For 20 years political scientists have investigated whether negative campaign ads, those that criticize the opponent, are more effective than positive ads, which extol the sponsoring candidate.
Yet the jury is out on whether “going negative” pays off. Negative campaigning or mudslinging is the process of deliberate spreading negative information about someone or something to worsen the public image of the described.