A Modest Argument for Negativity and Discord: Now is the Right Time [View All]

[WiseMen]

Fellow DUers, I write here an apologetic for some degree on negativity on this board and in the campaigns in general. Why negativity? Because it is the only tactic that both draws attention to the message and clearly differentiates one candidate from another. NOTHING ELSE WORKS. It is, indeed, the common wisdom of campaign practitioners and the effective result of numerous political campaigns, that nothing but NEGATIVE MESSAGES, regarding a dominant candidacy, can change the dynamic of a political campaign.

This was the rule that Howard Dean hewed to when he was a cipher on the political scene and launched his comprehensive assault against the Bush administration as the personification of everything duplicitous and evil and John Kerry as the arch “Washington Insider” and Bush-Lite. This onslaught of “negativity” and “anger” brought Dean media attention and a windfall of activist support and financing – and then more media attention.

Similarly, the perception of inevitability and the dominant level positive public support for Dean’s candidacy will not be changed without contrary negative information being put forcefully before the public.

Academic research is more nuanced regarding the effects of Negative Political Advertising. I include some citations below:

Gina Garramone et. al. in "Effects of Negative Political Advertising on the Political Process," (Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,1990 ) asserted that negative ads are very effective when differentiating or discriminating candidates' images, and they pointed out that:

“By providing concrete substantive information, a negative political ad may allow voters to distinguish candidate qualities, positions, and performance more readily than would other types of political information that provide less explicit information. Also, the greater perceived differences between candidates may lead voters to greater attitude polarization regarding the candidates. That is, by discerning clear differences between candidates, voters may be more likely to strongly like one candidate while strongly disliking the other”

Garramone suggests that perceived truthfulness of negative political advertising may determine its impact.

More recently, James King and Jason McConnell in “The Effect of Negative Campaign Advertising on Vote Choice: The Mediating Influence of Gender” (Social Science Quarterly, Volume 84 Issue 4 Page 843 - December 2003) found that women, not men, tended to turn against the sponsor of negative political ads over time.

Results show that there is a “parabolic effect of repeated exposure to negative advertisements that is gender specific. Among women, the sponsor initially benefits from an enhanced image but suffers a decline in image when the voters become overexposed to negative advertisements.” Thus, negative ads tend to boomerang on the sponsor, but only when it is over-done.

My point here is to encourage all my fellow democrats to accept the difficult reality that each of the lagging candidates and their supporters must articulate both a positive message and a solid critique of Howard Dean if they are to have any hope of the nomination. Even more important, we must expect the campaigns to launch whatever attacks they can NOW while there is still a small chance of getting media attention (and we know the media will only respond to the negative). This may not affect Dean’s numbers at this point in time, but it is really now or never.