Well, after conversing with some friends on the whole matter of negative campaigning, I thought I'd do some research on it. I was curious on the whys and whens of negative campaigns. For the most part, everything I've read appeared to be conflicting and not very definitive.
The most succinct explanation for these questions, comes from Wikipedia, which gives a few reasons on when a politician usually goes negative:
- when taking on an incumbent;
- when being significantly outspent;
- when there is irrefutable information that the opponent has done something wrong;
- when the candidate has little name recognition.
Well, Darling is the incumbent, she doesn't have proof that Wasserman has done something wrong, and she surely has name recognition after all these years serving her district.
Now, I am not privy to their campaign war chests, nor do I have knowledge of any current polls that have been taken regarding this race, but it seems to me that Darling is feeling the heat of a close race, or a race that she is actually losing. This would be hard for her to deal with emotionally, especially after all the times she was re-elected without any serious competition.
I then looked at what happens when a politician goes negative. Studies indicate that it is effective, which seems counterintuitive to me. But further reading shows that one of the results of excessive negative campaigning is that is reduces voter turn out, which is usually good for the incumbent, especially if the incumbent is a Republican.
But there can be backlashes, and that seems especially true this year. John McCain blew all sorts of money on negative ads, yet keeps falling farther and farther behind in the polls.
From The Moderate Voice:
An Ipsos public affairs poll released a few days after the final debate reveals that 57 percent of voters said the negative ads aren’t effective. Unless a candidate has a strong positive message outlining what he or she believes and is willing to push if elected, negative ads may also have a backlash effect as voters see only the dirt being thrown.
Sens. Norman Coleman (R-Minn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are among leading
Republicans who have attacked the McCain attack ads. “They don’t serve John McCain well,” said Collins, co-chair of McCain’s Maine campaign. She said the ads, especially an automated telephone “robocall” that ties Obama to radicals, “does not reflect the kind of leader that he [McCain] is.” McCain’s negative ad campaign was also one of the reasons why Colin Powell—chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under George H.W. Bush, secretary of state under George W. Bush—crossed party lines three weeks before the election to endorse Obama.Another negative arises with the use of negative ads. With voters being bombarded with radio, TV, Internet, and direct mail ads, the effect isn’t so much an additive effect—the more ads, the better the possibility of retention—but a subtractive effect—voters aren’t even paying attention. If they do, it’s solely to names, with name recognition often overriding political issues. Thus, if a negative TV ad mentions an opponent twice as many times, the voter comprehends the name, not the message; the brain may be subconsciously processing names, as it does when confronted by thousands of lawn signs and billboards, with the most mentions leading to a vote.
And from The Nation:
So when should a candidate use negative information about an opponent? The rule of thumb for professional campaign consultants is: "Never, never use negative campaign tactics unless your have to." Clearly, a candidate that can run an impeccably positive campaign and win by a comfortable margin is much better off running a "clean" campaign than a negative one. However, there are many instances in which a candidate cannot (at least in his or her own estimation) win simply by presenting positive information about him or herself. In every electoral contest, candidates try to secure the support of enough voters to win on election day. This process is a zero-sum game. A vote for one's opponent is one few vote a candidate will get on election day. A vote taken away from one's opponent is generally transferred to one's self. Winning voter support, then, can be accomplished by building strong support for one's self or by undercutting public support for one's opponent. When candidates struggle in their efforts to build positive images of themselves, many choose to close the gap by tarnishing the images of their opponents.
Given the realities of modern political campaigning, it should come as no surprise that the candidates most likely to use negative ads are challengers. Incumbents have generally spent years building positive images of themselves among voters. The longer an image of a candidate is maintained in the minds of voters, the more difficult it becomes to change that image. A challenger hoping to unseat and incumbent must provide evidence that the positive images voters have of their opponents are inaccurate. It is generally not enough for a challenger to simply present a positive image of him or herself. In fact, if voters have equally positive feelings about both candidates, the incumbent is bound to win on election day because the incumbent is a more familiar and proven commodity.
Sheldon Wasserman is technically the challenger in this race. However, due to his long record of serving ably in the State Assembly, he already has the name recognition and the good reputation enjoyed by incumbents. That is why he was able to come out with a positive commercial whereas Darling's commercial have been negative.
It can't be a good sign when the incumbent is feeling like the challenger, and feels the need to go negative against her opponent, in a vain effort just to make herself look better in the eyes of the voters. I've said it before, but I still wish Darling all the same results that her negativity brings, as it has been working out for McCain. As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't know what the finances of either campaign are, nor do I know any polling results. But, judging from her desperation and extreme negativity, the numbers can't be good for Darling
I'm not the only one that thinks Darling must be in trouble. Watchdog Milwaukee has seen similar signs, using lawn signs. The only point I disagree with is that I'm thinking Wasserman is not catching up, but is actually ahead.
ADDENDUM: JSOnline is reporting today that Darling is still at it, but that she's just as bad at running a campaign as she is representing her district.
I think you'll get your answer on 11/4, late PM.
ReplyDeleteIllegal aliens don't vote too often in Menomonee Falls.
Just got another robocall from Darling Alberta this morning. This time it was a clip of Chuckles Sykes ranting about how Wasserman broke the no tax pledge. Same message different ranter. This time it was an anonymous voice, not Alby's, talking about Chuckle's "insight" on the topic. She must know her constituents hate these calls, but for some reason feels compelled to use them. Hmmm..
ReplyDeleteDad,
ReplyDeleteThat means Darling would have to go without all the votes from the country clubs she patronizes. Now she is doomed for sure.