Going Negative

Going NegativeDr. Matthew Wall, Political Campaigns:

Week11

Deadline:

Focus:

To be included: Theoretical part: Empirical part:

Word limit:

Meetings to discuss:

Term paper

Now up and running at:

Includes student blogs and lecture slides from first 10 weeks.

Can be a useful resource while working on your term papers.

Course website

Begin by discussing the definition and measurement of negative campaign practices, with examples of different methods by which negative campaigns are performed.

Examine evidence-based research on the strategic uses of

negative campaigning. When and on whom is it used?

Discuss debate surrounding the effects of negative campaigning on voter turnout and the political system as a whole.

Today’s student presentation will focus on instances of this phenomenon in the 2012 campaigns in France and the USA.

Today’s talk

Definitions are either

1 Evaluative) negative campaigning includes “critiques that are unfair, illegitimate, and dishonest.”

This approach relates the practice of campaigning to the realisation of abstract ideals of representative democracy – and is critical of such activity.

This type of definition (explicit or implicit) is often present in media discussions on campaign negativity ‘observers often define as negativity as anything they do not like in a campaign’ (Lau and Pomper reading).

2 Directional) negative campaigning involves an attack or criticism of an identified opponent.

A more operational approach, directional definitions have been more frequently used in empirical studies.

Defining and measuring negative campaigning

Negative campaign defined in directional terms lead scholars to measure the numbers of instances in a given campaign that focus on attacking:

Traits of/performance of incumbent candidates. Campaign as a ‘referendum’ on the incumbent’s performance.

Traits of parties – including historical scandals. Traits of individual politicians – including political

record, past scandals, pre-political career, and personal life.


Measures of negative campaign output typically rely on content analysis (systematic coding).

Schemes are applied to campaigns’ output including: official ads and materials (TV, radio, newspaper ads, as well as flyers), candidates’ and campaign staff members’ statements in the media, and the websites and SNS sites of campaigns.

These schemes will try to identify the amount of negative campaigning (relative to positive and issue-based campaigning).

Also try to identify the direction (i.e. target), nature (personalised or political) and intensity of negative campaign messages.


‘Attack ads’ paid advertisements (TV, radio, newspapers etc.) – exclusively negative focus.

Contrast ads – negative focus on an opponent, positive contrasting

information about candidate.

In-campaign statements by candidates, especially during televised debates.

‘Dirty tricks’ non official – secret ‘leaks’ of damaging information to the

media.

Attacks via allies: candidate does not directly attack opponent, such attacks are fronted by campaign affiliated organisations (often created for solely this purpose: e.g. Swiftboat Veterans for Truth) in 2004 campaign.

Attacks via ‘memes’ among online support networks.

Forms of negative campaigning

These are the most commonly thought of negative campaign methodologies.

They focus at least some time to attacking an opposing candidate.

One particularly famous example is Lyndon Johnston’s 1964 ‘Daisy Girl’ commercial, which focused on the consequences of nuclear war – implicitly attacking the opposing candidate’s stance on nuclear weapon use in Vietnam.

We now see ‘meta’ attack ads, which criticize opponents for being too negative!

E.g. The ‘low road’ ad from Obama 2008.

Attack and contrast ads

The Daisy Girl

Whether in speeches, TV and radio appearances, or during debates, candidates can take an opportunity to engage in negative campaigning.

There are particularly high risks/rewards in doing so in a debate – risky if the candidate has a strong response, high payoff if they can be publicly bested.

Example from the Irish presidential debate: Martin McGuiness on Sean Gallagher (ex. FF frontrunner).

McGuinness inflicted severe damage on Gallagher, who’s handling of the attack led to his electoral collapse.

In-campaign mentions

Difficult to measure or study.

Most famous example is probably the Watergate scandal that eventually saw Richard Nixon resign from office in 1974.

Related to a break-in at the Democratic National Committee HA (at the Watergate Hotel) for the purposes of uncovering sensitive information to be leaked/used.

Generally hidden and difficult to distinguish from journalistic investigation.

Dirty tricks

Example – Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.

One of the most famous cases of negative campaigning occurred in 2004 when President George W. Bush ran for re-election against Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry.

Although the ad, which railed against Kerry’s service record in Vietnam (, was not authorized by the Bush team and instead was produced by Swift Boat Veterans, it was considered the eventual downfall of the Kerry campaign.

Big advantage is that it allows candidate/party to distance themselves from negative campaigning.

Can also be used to portray negative campaign initiatives as non political, or at least not party political, when in fact they are.

Can also be useful if the entire party is not happy to pursue a negative campaign issue, but some are.

Attacks via allies

Not necessarily endorsed or created by campaigns, but by partisan supporters.

Examples include parody videos and posters (recall the ‘mydavidcameron.com site that we looked at).

Also included are negative commentaries on videos or postings, and negative commentaries based around a hashtag on twitter.

Networked attacks via memes

When should we expect negative campaigning to happen, and who should we expect to be targeted?

When?: Conditions related to negative campaigns.

Engaging in negative campaigning is seen as a cost-benefit exercise.

There is typically a cost associated with ‘going on the attack’ in terms of candidate/party image and messaging ‘backlash’ or ‘boomerang’ effects where negative campaigning leads to more negative feelings towards the ‘attacker’.

Negative campaigning is not always about convincing an opponent’s voters to support you, it can be a statement of identity is used against

Conditions and targets for negative campaigns

We can distinguish systemic factors that generally encourage negative campaigning from party or candidate-level factors that explain their individual likelihood to conduct negative campaigns.

System-level factors: • Negative campaigning found in many political systems, and little comparative work to

help us compare national systems or individual elections.• Competitive races are more likely to be negative. • Unstable electorates also encourage negative campaigning. • Races featuring larger numbers of candidates tend to have more negative content.

Party/candidate-level factors:• Incumbency versus challenger status: Challengers typically seen as having strong

incentives to go negative, especially if economic performance has been poor. • The size of the existing support base: Frontrunners are less incentive to go negative

than outsiders. • The coalition expectations of parties: parties not expecting to enter post election

coalitions have greater license for negative campaigning.


Who? Choosing negative campaign targets.

In two-horse races, the choice of target is simple for the two front-runners: third/small candidates are not ‘worthy’ of negative campaign activity.

Costs in multiparty systems are more complex, as they include boomerang effects among voters and potential future negative effects in the coalition formation stage.

Benefits are not exclusive to the attacker in multiparty systems – the votes of an attacked party may simply transfer to another rival.

Even in presidential races, there is often a multiparty stage – e.g. USA primaries and first round vote in France.

Thus each opponent is a potential target for negative campaigning – and must be evaluated in terms of potential risks and rewards.


Conditions that make parties/candidates more attractive targets for negative campaigning:

1) Incumbency 2) Size 3) Ideological proximity/distance. 4) Coalition potential


Incumbency: The incumbent candidate/party/parties offer

a natural target for negative campaigning by opponents.

1) They typically (having won the previous election) have a large share of voters to be won over.

2) They have a record to be attacked - and are especially vulnerable when this record is demonstrably a poor one.


Size: Large parties and frontrunning candidates tend to be more attractive targets for negative campaign.

Why?

- They have more supporters to ‘convert’ than small candidates – so a successful attack has a higher potential payoff.

- They are already attracting significant coverage and attention,

so an attack on them is more likely to generate coverage than an attack on an outsider candidate.

- They are in a position where they do not need to attack, hence it can be strategically useful to ‘drag the campaign into the gutter’ by initiating a series of tit-for-tat attacks.


Ideological proximity/distance: An interesting factor: Generally, in a multiparty

context, the advice is to attack the most ideologically similar opponent.

Logic: you are competing for similar voters, so their loss will be your gain.

However, a party can often establish its credentials by attacking its most ideologically different opponent.

Especially when the party system provides for small, polarized parties.


Coalition potential:

If a potential target is also a potential coalition partner, this ads to the cost of attacking them.

This militates against many other factors that make a party a likely target: size, government status, and central ideological positioning.

It is possible to perform well in terms of votes and still be excluded in the coalition formation process.

Such exclusion likely to be applied to parties who have attacked and alienated potential partners.

Can also make it much more difficult for attackers to ‘sell’ subsequent coalition partners to their supporters.

Empirical finding: the higher the coalition potential of a party (to another party) the less likely they will attack it.

‘Outsider’ parties are thus more vulnerable to negative campaigning due to these factors.


2 broad questions: 1) Is it a ‘winning’ strategy? i.e. does it lead to extra votes and,

ultimately, electoral victory.

2) Is it ‘bad’ for democracy? How does it influence turnout. How does it affect levels of voter knowledge

and satisfaction with democracy?

The Effects of Negative Campaigns

1) Is it a ‘winning’ strategy? What data there is indicates that the amount of negative

campaigning is increasing, both in the USA and internationally. Evidently therefore candidates, parties and consultants think that negative campaigning is effective.

Academic analyses are somewhat inconclusive – difficult to measure and to observe ‘effects’ of negativity.

Overall, not strong evidence to suggest that it is particularly effective (see Lau et al. reading).

Lau and Pomper suggest that negative campaigning is associated with better results for challengers and worse results for incumbents.


Is it ‘bad’ for democracy? Does it lead to lower turnout? Does it lead to lower levels of voter trust in government,

lower political efficacy, and a downbeat public mood?

Evidence: Lau et al.’s ‘meta analysis’ (study of studies): No evidence that it decreases turnout: ‘the research

literature provides no general support for the hypothesis that negative political campaigning depresses voter turnout’ (p. 1184)

There does appear to be support for lower levels of trust in government and political efficacy caused by negative campaigns.


Is it ‘bad’ for democracy? Arguments in favour of negative campaigning (Mayer

reading):

Negative campaigning often reveals new, useful information to voters.

Candidates who wish to change the status quo must first justify their criticisms.

Candidate character is an important aspect of suitability for office, and candidates should be subject to criticism.

Restricting negative campaigning would be extremely difficult and could corrode freedom of expression.


Negative campaigns are a large and growing part of the campaign landscape.

Certain parties and candidates are particularly vulnerable, but there are costs and benefits to every attack decision.

There is little clear evidence in terms of the effects of negative campaigning on performance or on democracy writ large.

Conclusions

Going Negative

Documents