Does Negative Campaigning Work?

By Anastacia Mott Austin

Take the Clinton campaign as an example. You can’t for one minute imagine that Bill Clinton did not have at least the tacit approval of Hillary Clinton’s campaign machine to start badmouthing Barack Obama right before (and after) the South Carolina primaries. One gets the sense that not much escapes the mouths of either of the Clintons that is not thought about beforehand and analyzed for its political impact.

So did they miscalculate when it all started turning sour? Exit polls showed that those who felt that Bill Clinton’s campaigning in South Carolina was "important" voted overwhelmingly for Obama – it ended up being important in helping them to decide not to vote for Hillary.

Some felt that Bill Clinton’s comments about Obama, emphasizing his race and likening his South Carolina victory to that of Jesse Jackson (who won the state in the 1984 and 1988 presidential primaries), were below the belt. Many who’d thought that the Clinton administration had done much to advance equality for African Americans felt let down that he would purposefully allude to race, well, in the race.

Meanwhile, Obama has sought to downplay his racial background, claiming to be a uniter among all people, not a divisive force. Earlier this month, both the Clinton and Obama camps decided to pull negative radio ads after receiving complaints about negative campaigning. Clinton’s ad referenced comments made by Obama, and tried to make it seem like the Illinois senator was in favor of Reagan-era politics. In return, the Obama campaign pulled an ad that stated, "Hillary Clinton – she’ll say anything and change nothing." Both campaigns agreed to withdraw the ads.

Indeed, Bill Clinton is said to have received pressure by the Democratic National Party, and from none other than Jesse Jackson himself, to "take a higher road," and not create racial tensions within the party itself. The Republicans have not been faring much better in the negativity wars. Tensions have risen between frontrunners Mitt Romney and John McCain, as they accuse each other of being "the liberal candidate."

Romney leveled the accusation at McCain first, saying that McCain had sided with liberal Democrats in the Senate on issues such as immigration and the environment. "If you want that kind of a liberal Democratic course as President, then you can vote for him," said Romney. McCain countered that Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts was a mess of flip-flopping. "He has been entirely consistent. He has consistently taken two sides of every major issue, sometimes more than two. So congratulations," sniped McCain.

Romney also attacked McCain’s leadership ability, saying "If he’s a leader, where has he led us?" When Romney criticized McCain’s knowledge of the economy as being at a "novice" level, McCain responded by saying that when he was a commander in the Navy, "I did not manage, I led. And I did not manage for profit, I led for patriotism."

So it’s safe to say that the gloves are off on both sides of the aisle. And the voters don’t like it. While the benefit of negative campaign ads, or so say the strategists, is that they stick in the minds of the voters far more strongly than any positive message, voters are definitely turned off by the practice, and some decide not to vote for anyone because of it.

Especially in terms of intra-Party sniping, negative campaigning can come back to bite candidates later when it comes time for the actual Presidential campaign. If a primary campaign is overly negative, voters can decide they don’t like either candidate, or the other guy can use that negativity…it’s like free advertising.

Negativity could be particularly damaging in this year of both parties advocating change from "politics as usual." Nothing screams "politics" more loudly than a nasty smear campaign. It’s ugly and it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of voters.

If recent Presidential elections serve as a barometer of American politics, the nation is the most closely divided between the two major political parties it has ever been. Nobody is going to win by a landslide. When the stakes are that close, no one can afford to turn off the voters.

Even the experts disagree about negativity in politics. Some claim it dampens voter enthusiasm and decreases turnout at the polls. Others say it’s a tried-and-true strategy that never fails to win elections. "It is a question of what are you going negative on," said Shanto Iyengar, a longtime analyst of politics and negative campaigning. "No one would have raised a finger if [Bill Clinton] had attacked Obama’s health-care plan as not being comprehensive enough. But the racial stuff and the Jackson comment was just way over the line," said Iyengar to reporters.

Iyengar added that he thinks negativity ultimately turns voters away.

Could the seemingly obvious attacks by the Clinton camp be a conscious effort to get Obama to "fight dirty" back? Such a reaction would be fatal to Obama’s campaign, which has thus far ridden the overwhelming wave created by its message of positive change, of politics not as usual. If Obama starts acting more like a politician, some of his biggest supporters will lose faith.

Kansas State University professor David Proctor says the Clintons are very likely trying to start a mudslinging war. "The Clintons are masters at this sort of politics in that they are always thinking about strategy and tactics and whatever they have to do to build a coalition to get 51 percent of the vote," Proctor told the press.

Despite political pundits’ insistence on believing that negativity boosts votes and that "everyone does it because everyone knows it works," could the tide finally be turning against negativity? Are Americans truly sick of politics as usual to the point of refusing to accept negative campaigns?

Consider the fact that Bill Clinton’s criticisms right before the South Carolina primary seem to have actually worked for Obama and against Hillary. Remember that voters who had heard of the comments overwhelmingly voted to support Obama. The majority of voters felt that the negativity coming from the Clinton campaign was another sign that Hillary was not going to change anything in the White House.

And the harsh comments from Mitt Romney against McCain in Florida seem to have worked against him too, when McCain won that battle despite Romney’s outspending McCain in the state.

We want new leadership, and it’s difficult for a nation’s people to garner up enough respect for the person sitting in the White House if he or she can’t even play clean in the sandbox. We want our next leader to be a grown-up.

When voters keep saying, again and again, across party lines, that they want something different, maybe it’s time for politics as usual to sit up and take notice.