How slimy is negative campaigning?
 

VERY slimy, no matter which side you are on. The most interesting part of this article is the description of the proper way to use negative information:

If you have a big story that's going to hit in the middle of September, middle of October, what you really want to do is build several things that come off of the story so that it's not just a one-day hit. If the story runs on the front page of a major paper, you also want to set it up so that it hits some of the television morning shows, and from there you want to have surrogates [friendly talking heads] out the next day, so that you get a second hit. On the third day, ideally, you have some additional information you've been holding back that you can feed into it [to prompt] another round of stories. On the fourth or fifth day you try to hold your candidate back from saying anything, so that eventually, when he does say something about the issue, you get another round of stories. If you do it effectively, you can basically wipe out a guy's entire week—he'll spend the entire week responding to a story that showed up on a Monday.

Also interesting is the fact that one of the opposition researchers has boxes of information stacked in his basement, ready to go if hillary clinton decides to run for president.

I know that negative campaigning is political necessity--it's a shame the process been analyzed and perfected into such a science though. This HAS to be the slimiest job ever.

Negative campaigning though is not a necessity. It is a way to get focus off the more important issues of the day and make it seem like the voter has no choice but the lesser of 2 evils.

Negative campaigning takes no ingenuity, no originality and no thought.

Whereas positive campaigns, (those that promise a better future and show how to achieve it with issues and solutions) are hard because you are bound to piss a part of the voters off, moreso than the negative which most people expect.

Let's say Kerry comes out and says, "ok no negativity I'm running solely on the issues. The deficit is going to require a decently sized tax increase. There should be no gov't regulation on any marriage, blah blah blah......" and does not even mention Bush he loses some voters, in his and his aides' viewpoint.

But he and his aides feel if they trash Bush, then they gain voters or turn off enough Bush supporters that Kerry then will win, and they didn't have to make promises that run the risk of not coming to light nor do they piss off anyone by taking a controversial stance on an issue.

Bush does the same thing.

While negative campaigning is nothing new the depths have continually gotten worse and worse the past few years. It has gotten to the point where people truly don't know where the candidates stand because the other side uses 30 second sound bites to make the opposition sound like he waffles on issues. This has happened with the rise of mass media, because they feel negativity sells more product than good news (and it does).

Incidentally, they play the system with news of all kinds. The whole Reagan thing is going to get played for all it's worth to take some of the pressure off GWB. Don't believe me? Check out the Bush 2004 website.

They do it with mundane bad news. Less than favorable reports are always released on friday. You can always tell good news. Why? Cause you actually hear about it! Condi doesn't make the run of the talk shows when something gets messed up.

Same goes for negative campaigning, but it's by no means a dirty trick, only pulled out to smear the other guy.

I think that no matter what, with the internet and competition among the various news outlets, whether print, electronic or video, someone is going to come up with the dirt if there is some. And with the internet, you can make something up, then someone will have to check it out. It is dangerous out there.

If there was a candidate who steadfastly refused to use negative campaigning, I would seriously consider voting for him. A candidate's attitude is often far more important than his promises; they typically break all their promises anyway.

Seriously. What we need is an issues-based, intelligent discussion between candidates. In fact, we need multiple debates with questions asked by people from around the country.

You wouldn't happen to be a Democrat, would you? :)

IMHO, it's a shame that people here don't have the patience for a serious campaign with complex but relevant debates of the issues. It's boring as hell, but it might make for a better democracy.

I have Dick Morris's book, The New Prince up on my bookshelf. I'll quote a passage out of it right quick:

From Chapter 4: Positives over Negatives:

He attributes this to a few things. One, voters are more aware of negative ads, and are more resistant to being manipulated by them. Two, voters are more educated on the issues, and are more apt to question the claims made by negative ads.

Actually I'm a registered unaffiliated, but I'm feeling more Democratic every day. What makes you ask if I'm a Democrat?

The problem is that your average American is too busy watching Reality TV (it used to be Jerry Springer; how times have changed!) to spend time sifting through a lengthly process. But a couple intelligent debates wouldn't hurt anyone.

Good quote.

"We're not THAT good but lets face it, if you vote that other guy he'll do all these nasty things to you and your family"

Says a lot about current policy.

It seems that no one likes negative campaiging but it does serve a important purpose. Negative campaiging gets media attention and stirs interest among constituents. Media attention is free (no money gone from war chest) and a lot of times any interest is good interest. It may not be the favored way (or even palatable) but it has become a necesarry cog in the political machine.

ruggerp: exactly. news has to be juicy to be popular, and negative campaigning capitalizes on this fact. Moreover, it has to be hot and juicy, so it's ez to throw a story to the media, saying that they need to run it quickly or else they'll take their story to another newspaper/tv station. they're in such a hurry to run it, they don't bother with the fact checking. very cheap way of getting your opponent to lose some points.

There have always been politicians who knew how to run a negative campaign and manipulate the press and public opinion. It's just now the media has such a massive and painfully predictable infrastructure for a candidate to exploit - and we're so conscious of its size - that it looks a 1000 times worse.

Wars used to be fought with swords and horses. Now they're fought with nuclear bombs and battleships. People still die just the same.

So it goes with politics and the media.

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.

thanks for the insight rodney. that makes a lot of sense.