Rodney

Negative campaigning is used by both sides, but it is especially popular with incumbents who are not popular or feel they are in a weak position. Through negative campaigning, they can raise the FUD factor (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that the public has about the new guy and say, "Well, I've got problems but I'm a known quantity, while _this_ guy...." The idea is to scare the voters into "playing it safe" and sticking with the incumbent.

The problem is that, after the election, the incumbent is no stronger than he or she ever was, and may not be able to govern effectively or even hold on to office. The classic case occurred here in California when the _very_ unpopular incumbent (Democratic) governor Gray Davis used negative campaigning during the Republican primary to demolish the centrist Republican that he was afraid of facing in November. And he succeeded; the GOP candidate who did get the nomination was too conservative for the California electorate at large, and Davis got another term. But he was still so unpopular that he was unseated soon after through a recall campaign, and Arnie became governor.

That's a little verbose, but it outlines the _real_ problem with negative campaigning: when used by an incumbent, it can retain in office a politician who can no longer effectively govern. And in many cases, it only puts off the inevitable: loss of office, or of power, or of effectiveness.