The Wisconsin election was not patty cake. Like all recall elections, this one started negative ("Fire the bum!") and just got nastier, but that negativity didn't suppress turnout. In fact, turnout in the Wisconsin recall was 56 percent, more than showed up in the regularly scheduled 2010 elections. If you like democracy, this is good news. But don't expect the myth that negative campaigns suppress voters to die in Wisconsin.
This false notion is one of the most widely held misconceptions about American politics. You see it in a Washington Post op-ed ("... studies show that negative ads can reduce turnout") and hear it on National Public Radio ("What observers have historically found is that negative campaigns suppress turnout").
Where you don't see this is in a real campaign. In my day job, I'm an opposition researcher and hardly a dispassionate observer, so don't take my word for it. Instead, read a 2007 study in the Journal of Politics by three academics -- Richard R. Lau of Rutgers University, The George Washington University's Lee Sigelman, and Ivy Brown Rovner from Rutgers University. Among their conclusions was that the demobilization hypothesis -- the fancy term for the myth of negative campaigning suppressing voters -- did not hold up to analysis. In fact, their analysis showed the opposite could be true, just like we saw in Wisconsin.
Our two most recent presidential campaigns back that up. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ushered in a new age of negative campaigning with their odious and inaccurate attacks on John Kerry's war record, while Democrats didn't care so much about defending their nominee as attacking George W. Bush's record -- remember "No blood for oil"? But despite an election more negative than a dysfunctional family Thanksgiving, a record 122.3 million Americans voted in 2004.
The 2008 election plays differently in our memories with the cheering crowds and possibilities of historical change, but in reality it was the most negative in U.S. history. Both Barack Obama and John McCain ran about two negative ads for every positive one. Because Obama ran many more ads than McCain, the Democrat ended up running the most negative ads ever. Despite -- or because of -- this, 130 million voters showed up at the ballot box, beating 2004's record.
Academia and anecdotal experience offer some theories about why negative campaigning gets voters out of their La-Z-Boys. The 2007 study by the three academics also found that voters recalled negative information better than positive facts because they're "sticky" (the details, not the academics) and more likely to elicit emotional reactions. And while you contemplate whether cynicism plays a role in voters being more willing to believe bad things about politicians than good things, ask yourself this: What was Bill Clinton's greatest policy achievement? And while you ponder that, tell me what tobacco product Monica Lewinsky used as a plaything and where she bought that dress. It's far easier to remember that Lewinsky got that blue dress at the Gap than to remember that Clinton presided over a lengthy economic expansion because not only are politicians human, but apparently we are as well.
Despite certain details sticking in their minds, voters are better at separating the relevant attacks from the chaff. The punditry might get its microphone cords in a twist over Monicagate and other irrelevant scandals, voters give greater weight to conflicts of interest, business records, and votes in office -- in other words, the attacks that actually have something to do with the job. The possibility that voters were punishing Republicans for pursuing an irrelevant line of attack goes a long way toward explaining why Democrats gained seats in 1998 and why Clinton ended his impeachment trial with record approval ratings.
The lesson that voters keep trying to teach us is clear: If you want to rock the vote, use sticks and stones. But no matter how many times we see this cause and effect, pundits and other party poopers hold fast to the myth that negative campaigns suppress turnout. And though the myth should have died in Wisconsin, expect to hear more gnashing of teeth about the supposed evils of negative campaigning before this election is over. But the next time a pundit tells you politics has reached a new low, now you'll know better.
Follow Jason Stanford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JasStanford
Sanjay Sanghoee: The Case for Barack Obama
Andy Ostroy: Marketing Advice for Obama
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Require political adds to be truthful. THEN I'll believe that "negative campaigns" serve a purpose.
Not that I expect that to happen.
When those IN power got that way through corruption, they aren't very likely to fix a broken system responsible for them getting elected in the first place................are they?
Much of the campaigning is about what is true and what isn't. The government certainly shouldn't step in and decide.
Be careful with those "sticks and stones". They often boomerang causing disdain. Just look at the OWS and Wisconsin statehouse fiascos.
Is rather irrelevant.
That number doesn't say anything more than there were more voters. From 2004 to 2008 how many citizens were added to the voting pool versus how many left? A flat increase in voter turnout means nothing unless we compare those numbers to something relevant. What percentage increase of those eligible to vote did we see? Further, how can we even know that it was negative ads that fueled that turnout and not other factors like say the first black president ever?
Even the linked article says the following:
"Exit polls indicate that whites made up a slightly smaller percentage of the electorate than in 2004, as a surge among minority and youth voters aided Obama, who exit polls show won two-thirds of voters ages 18 to 29, 66 percent of Hispanics and 95 percent of blacks."
Which actually weakens the position of this article. Do you honestly think the people of this country needed reasons to not vote for McCain? The academics I asked, but won't source, and anecdotal evidence tells me that it wasn't negative campaigning as much as "we're tired of old rich white dudes".
Jason, you need to reconsider your misconceptions about correlation and causation.
1. Negativity is not a uniform motivator, but is usually target-specific. A negative ad will embolden people who have already committed themselves to the negative concept being presented, but its effect on those opposed to the concept is less consistent: it's as likely to make them turn away in disgust as step up and act. That's useful if one wants to stock the polls with a particular demographic group, but not as healthy for democracy as you've presented it.
2. Negative campaigning tends to encourage emotional reasoning and discourage critical thought. It's much more suited to heated, over-simplified declamations than to the kind of nuanced cognition one would hope for from responsible citizens. That only leads to a situation where politics is dominated by the most vehemently self-righteous, while thoughtful, considerate citizens retreat in dismay.
Democracy is more than mere bean-counting. Adding more people to the discussion is pointless if the discourse is carried on at the level of howling monkeys.
Well said, indeed!! F&F
it's that old saw: fear makes everyone conservative; courage makes them liberal.
That's not to say there aren't people on the left who go negative. But negativity on the left is almost exclusively a reaction to some absurdity from the right.
Yr reply resembles a paper you may have done for a sophomore poly sci class. Sounds a b it like some bilge a prof might have suggested as the norm. In the real world, those resorting to negative ads in a political campaign are those who want to divert attention from themselves onto their opponents. Axelrod as a progressive wanting only to foster progressive change makes as much sense as Al Capone being an altar boy.
American politics is a disaster and while the government is paralyzed, uncharacteristically serious problems continue to grow. Serious crimes go uninvestigated, let alone prosecuted, and blatant quasi-bribery rules the roost.
But it doesn't seem to bother this fellow.
Yes, we want to encourage high voter turnouts, but with a reasonably informed electorate.
I have no problem with honest criticism of a candidate's record, or proposals. That's part of what is debate is about. But most of the "negative ads" I have seen are fundamentally dishonest. Manufacturers and vendors can't legally tell lies in order to get you to buy; but political candidates can.
Part of the problem is that all of the manipulative crap crowds out real discussion of how likely a candidate's proposals are to actually work, when, that is, they actually have an examinable proposal. It is so much easier to demonize one's opponent.
In the nineties, Barry Goldwater decried the increasing loss of collegiality in the Senate. A Democratic senator concurred. Within my lifetime was a period in which both political parties negotiated noticeably more productively to solve the nation's problems. In the current hyper-partisan atmosphere, the emphasis is on partisan domination, while the fate of the nation drifts.
And that's because people can disagree about what's a lie or not. The only way to decide is to allow full and free discussion of it.
The LAST thing we need is the government intervening and deciding what is true or false in politics. I shouldn't have to explain why.
These are people in whom we place the public's trust. They should be expected to run clean campaigns and clean terms of office. The type of advertising now used that's based on distortions and innuendo doesn't fit into that. If WE tolerate it, we cheat ourselves.
But they protest, "Obama wants to kill all the babies and make us commies!"
And, "Romney wants to marry all the babies and make us all Mormons!"
Yeah, screw you America.