NEGATIVE
Does negative campaigning work? Do people care that Karcher legally but perhaps not fairly takes advantage of the farm preservation program. Do the voters care that Oscanlon got a consulting contract in Fairhaven? Do the voters care if someone screws up with there elec forms? I could go on and on.
Beyond whether it works when is negative campaigning OK. Is it sometimes unethical itself?
Certainly it works at least sometimes. Especially if it is credible. Look at the swift boat campaign against Kerry. That sure worked. Of course that was done by a group with no obvious political axe to grind and many people had the precept ion that the Swifties were credible. (before any dems start yelling at me notice I said perception. I am not taking a position on whether the perception is true or not because that is not the point of this post. So please do not go there). There are lots of example where negative campaigning has worked and worked well. Does it ever backfire?
On the other hand I notice that the more local the race the less effective it is. While you always have a group of people ready to believe the worst about anyone most people do not want to believe bad things about their neighbors. Just a theory. Maybe I am being to optimistic about human nature.
Certainly it is appropriate if it goes to the honesty and integrity of the candidate. But how bad does it have to be to qualify. Who out there has led a blameless life. Raise your hand.
Ha! I thought so. I do not see any hands raised ;)
But certainly it is sometimes relevant. Look at the extreme end. I f somebody was a convicted embezzler that is negative but certainly relevant. What about the guy who has filed bankruptcy is that fair game? Does it depend on the reasons?
How much puffery is allowed? I would say none in a negative campaign. If it is not bad enough as is to make a difference do not slant it. As Joe Friday said. 'Just the facts" or to turn a phrase, you report the voters decide.
Is politics like love and war where all is fair?
Tough questions with no easy bright line answers but certainly worth thinking about.
Does negative campaigning work? Do people care that Karcher legally but perhaps not fairly takes advantage of the farm preservation program. Do the voters care that Oscanlon got a consulting contract in Fairhaven? Do the voters care if someone screws up with there elec forms? I could go on and on.
Beyond whether it works when is negative campaigning OK. Is it sometimes unethical itself?
Certainly it works at least sometimes. Especially if it is credible. Look at the swift boat campaign against Kerry. That sure worked. Of course that was done by a group with no obvious political axe to grind and many people had the precept ion that the Swifties were credible. (before any dems start yelling at me notice I said perception. I am not taking a position on whether the perception is true or not because that is not the point of this post. So please do not go there). There are lots of example where negative campaigning has worked and worked well. Does it ever backfire?
On the other hand I notice that the more local the race the less effective it is. While you always have a group of people ready to believe the worst about anyone most people do not want to believe bad things about their neighbors. Just a theory. Maybe I am being to optimistic about human nature.
Certainly it is appropriate if it goes to the honesty and integrity of the candidate. But how bad does it have to be to qualify. Who out there has led a blameless life. Raise your hand.
Ha! I thought so. I do not see any hands raised ;)
But certainly it is sometimes relevant. Look at the extreme end. I f somebody was a convicted embezzler that is negative but certainly relevant. What about the guy who has filed bankruptcy is that fair game? Does it depend on the reasons?
How much puffery is allowed? I would say none in a negative campaign. If it is not bad enough as is to make a difference do not slant it. As Joe Friday said. 'Just the facts" or to turn a phrase, you report the voters decide.
Is politics like love and war where all is fair?
Tough questions with no easy bright line answers but certainly worth thinking about.
posted by Teddy Roosevelt at
7:46 AM
4 Comments:
Great conversation TR. On the local level, where the candidates are neighbors, I think it backfires more often than not. Even the perception of negativity can hurt a candidate.
When I ran for Highlands council in 2003, my running mate wanted to make cleaning up drugs in town an issue. We pledged to submit to drug tests.
Our opponents spun this to mean that we were accusing them of being drug users, even though we did no such thing. It worked for them with many voters.
Voters have heard so many negatives over the years that they are tired of it. They don't like petty negative things being said about people they see in church or at the grocery store.
In the county races, the Dems and the APP making an issue out of the absentee ballot mailer was petty and has backfired. The JackHillLied website will likely backfire on the Republicans, because the issue is petty and doesn't impact the voters lives.
The Karcher Christmas tree farm issue has legs for so many reasons, but mostly because Karcher has sold herself as beyond reproach. If Karcher hasn't paid income taxes or sales tax on those cash sales of trees, she has a problem, if and it is a big if, Beak has the money to keep the issue alive and/or the APP hammers Karcher over it.
Not sureI agree about the impact of the Karcher thing.
Although I have been wro..wring ahh wong... I mean slightly mistaken before.
Christmas tree story has some impact part of the reason the APP endorsed Jen Beck.
See that.
What the hell do I know.
Me personally that is way down on my list of concerns.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home