Devan Misra
11/08/2010
English 110
Prof. Jacobs
To Sling or Not to Sling That Is The Question
There is a generally held public response that political campaigning is more negative and unethical than it has ever been. Whether this is historically true or not, however, is the subject of some debate. Politicians have long thrown mud at each other and the history of negative campaigning reaches back to the earliest days of this nation. Then as today, rumor and gossip feed a press and public hungry for scandalous tales. Setting aside the question of whether or not things have gotten worse, there remain to be addressed important questions about the effects of negative campaigning. However, clear answers to these questions are not readily forthcoming because research on negative campaigning and negative campaign advertising has yielded conflicting results. Some studies suggest that negative campaign ads are more easily remembered and, therefore, have a greater influence on voters' attitudes and vote decisions. Other research, however, provides evidence that the opposite is true. Moreover, while some research suggests that candidates who run negative ads are more likely to win, other research suggests that running negative ads makes a candidate more likely to lose. There are also conflicting conclusions about the effect of negative advertising on voter turnout--some

research concludes that negative campaigning depresses turnout while other findings suggest that intense competition enhances voter turnout. All in all it seems that negative campaign advertising is a very debatable topic.
According Paul Freedman and Ken Goldstein of the American Journal of
Political Science, they ask
“Does negative campaigning influence the likelihood of voting in elections? Our study of U.S. Senate campaigns indicates the answer is "yes." We find that people distinguish between useful negative information presented in an appropriate manner and irrelevant and harsh mudslinging. As the proportion of legitimate criticisms increases in campaigns, citizens become more likely to cast ballots.
When campaigns degenerate into unsubstantiated and shrill attacks, voters tend to stay home. Finally, we find that individuals vary in their sensitivity to the tenor of campaigns. In particular, the tone is more consequential for independents, for those with less interest in politics, and for those with less knowledge about politics.” (851)
In conclusion the American Political Science Review members believe that negative campaign advertising can actually make the voter turn out decrease if there is a large amount of negative advertising. Many political scientists, like John Geer of Vanderbilt
University, agree. “Many pundits view negative ads as counterproductive, but nothing could be further from the truth,” Geer says. “Attack ads contain more substantive information than positive ads (Miller-McCune).
Negative campaigning can evoke negative responses toward the source of the campaign. In addition to the content of negative advertising, the contexts of the ads

are also important in analyzing how effective they are and how the ads impact on voter’s perspectives of the political candidates. For example, running back-to-back sequences of attack ads may do more damage to the candidate than to the opponent, particularly if the attack ads utilize the technique of mudslinging, where the negative information presented is hardly relevant to the overall political process.
Additionally, voters typically hold challengers and incumbents to different standards. This is because the incumbent is expected to use more positive campaigning strategies than a challenger as the challenger is trying to prove why he or she is more worthy of the elected position than the incumbent. Some strategists say that an effect of negative campaigning is that while it motivates the base of support it can alienate centrist and undecided voters from the political process, reducing voter turnout and radicalizing politics. In a study done by Gina Garramone about how negative advertising affects the political process, it was found that a consequence of negative campaigning is greater image discrimination of the candidates and greater attitude split. While positive ads also contributed to the image discrimination and attitude split, Garramone found that negative campaigning played a more influential role in the discrimination and division than positive campaigning.
John Zogby wrote in his article that
“Sen. Hillary Clinton, the once-inevitable Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, whose campaign unleashed attacks against Sen.
Barack Obama. Many would argue that Clinton scored some vital political points in the Texas primary with a hard-hitting ad about Obama's lack of

experience and in Ohio about his flip-flopping regarding NAFTA. But these are states where she had been leading by 20 or more points and where she was probably more effective in bringing out her base among Hispanics in
Texas, blue collar voters in Ohio and older women in both states. She probably scored points with white men in the short run, but will that group support her in November? Did she win a short-term battle only to hurt herself in the bigger war? Obama never responded in kind, gained momentum as Clinton grew defensive, and has never looked back. Negative campaign ads used to be employed to help candidates "define" their opponents, but now the one who airs the ads seems to be defined more than the targeted candidate.”(54)
Here it is shown that because Sen. Hilary Clinton unleashed attacks against President Obama then senator she portrayed poorly and was held in high disregard, whereas President Obama did not resort to attacking but strictly positive campaigning and thusly actually leading to his election as president.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 40% of Adults who at least occasionally watch TV say there is more negative political advertising this election year than in previous years. Only nine percent feel there are fewer negative ads, while 47% think the number is about the same as in past election years.

A solid majority of all adult television watchers believe most political advertising attacks the opposing candidate, while just 12% feel most ads promote the candidates who are paying for them. Twenty-one percent are not sure.
But only eight percent of all adults say negative ads make them more likely to vote for the candidate who produced the advertisement. Fifty-six percent say these types of ads make them less likely to vote for the candidate behind it. Another 31% say negative ads have no impact on which candidate they’ll vote for.
Rasmussen Reports conducted the survey of 1,000 Adults on
September 27-28, 2010. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Fifty-six percent of those who watch
TV at least occasionally say they follow TV political ads at least somewhat closely, with 23% who say they follow them Very Closely. But 41% say they don't watch them closely, if at all. Still, just over half of all adults think that political ads on television should be banned. Thirty-four percent disagree and feel political advertising should remain as part of campaign strategy.
Fourteen percent are undecided. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and adults not affiliated with either of the two parties agree that negative ads make them less likely to vote for the candidate who produced it. They agree, too, that political ads should be banned from television. Recent polling finds that 44% of voters say it is not possible to win a political campaign in this country today without raising money from lobbyists.

So it can be seen that negative ads can change what a person thinks about a candidate for either better or worse. It is all really arguable.
In late January, just after the Supreme Court campaign finance ruling, a majority of voters said corporations and unions should not be able to spend money on political ads to influence elections. Thirty-eight percent of voters say they are more likely to contribute time or money to a political campaign this year compared to previous election years.
There are may issues with negative campaign advertising yet the public sees it all the time. The public either gets swayed by the mudslinging or they or repulsed and end up not voting at all. It appears that negative campaigning is conflicting and wields many different outcomes but yet it is a tactic used by many.

Works Cited
Zogby, John. "Nasty No Longer Works." Politics (Campaigns & Elections) 29.4
(2008): 850-895 Academic Search Complete . EBSCO. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.
Freedman, Paul, and Ken Goldstein. "Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads." American Journal of Political Science 43.4 (1999): 1189.
Academic Search Complete . EBSCO. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.
"40% of TV Viewers Say There Are More Negative Campaign Ads This Year -
Rasmussen Reports™." Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion
Data Anywhere. Ed. Scott Rasmussen. 04 Oct. 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2
010/40_of_tv_viewers_say_there_are_more_negative_campaign_ads_this_year>.
Ramos, Amy R. "Lies and Campaign Advertising." Smart Journalism. Real Solutions.
Miller-McCune. 30 Jan. 2008. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.millermccune.com/politics/lies-and-campaign-advertising-4757/>.