New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | February 10, 2006

Kerry Howley gets dirty with David Mark, an expert on, and fan of, negative campaigning.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← CPAC Blogging: Manning (But Not in… | Main | Stop Worrying About the Trade Deficit →

See all 11 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|2.10.06 @ 4:16PM|#

I would appreciate it if you refrained from linking to pictures of scary looking women. I clicked on the lady with the face transplant a couple of days ago, then I clicked on Harris today. And don't try to tell me that I am free to refrain from clicking.

|2.10.06 @ 4:31PM|#

The laughing at Agnew ad was good, but the dirty ad showing Humphrey laughing as a series of still pictures from the Vietnam war flashed on the screen did more to help Nixon then the Agnew ad hurt.

When the ad appeared during Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, I knew Nixon had Humphrey beat. That ad was almost as effective as the pro Johnson anti-Goldwater ad with the little girl plucking a daisy as a countdown to a nuclear explosion happens.

|2.10.06 @ 4:32PM|#

Only pussies refrain from negative campaigning. Negative campaigning has a long history of success and the only people who shun it are the ones that have no chance in winning anyways.

|2.10.06 @ 4:55PM|#

it is surely effective, but i believe negative campaigns are the reason that so few quality candidates can be found for public office. who wants to subject themselves to that? what veteran wants to have to combat innuendo that they're traitors? what family court judge wants to be accused of being a pedophile?

silly accusations that don't merit a response, but require one - because it will be deemed true otherwise by so many voters.

disgusting really.

|2.10.06 @ 5:09PM|#

it is surely effective, but i believe negative campaigns are the reason that so few quality candidates can be found for public office

Although I don't doubt that the negative campaigning has an effect (esp. if they have a few youthful indescretions under their belt) but do you really think that is "the reason".

I tend to believe that the amount of money required to become a viable candidate that is taken seriously and run a campaign is a huge hurdle for even some of the best intentioned people to overcome. The amount of fundraising required seems to be quite a burden.

I also think that the concept of not responding to negative ads in order to try and marginalize them or for fear of granting legitimacy to the attacker is another losing position.

|2.10.06 @ 5:14PM|#

Tom, just click on me, baby!

|2.10.06 @ 5:44PM|#

ChicagoTom,

agreed. my post would have been better phrased with negative campaigns being a big reason as opposed to the reason.

which is how i meant it, sorry about any confusion.

|2.10.06 @ 5:52PM|#

Mark echoes a point made by a friend of my father, an elected Judge who had been groomed within the Republican Party machine since he was in high school. He said that the goal of an election wasn't to get as many people as you can to vote. The goal is to make sure more people vote for you. Screw turn out. If only 10 people show up you just need to make sure 6 are on your side. Going negative might turn off swing voters, but who cares? You want them to stay home anyway. They're too unpredictable. Beat the war drums and fire up the base. That's how you win.

That's why third parties and independents will continue to be ignored. If you're the Republicans why would you waste time drawing out a few cranky libertarians when you can get a bus full of Christian zealots for half the price?

|2.10.06 @ 7:02PM|#

Senator Klaghorn says he washes his hands before every meal, but according to his schedule, he went drove straight from the Senate to a diplomatic reception, and sat down at the table immediately after his chauffeur let him off at the door! How could he have had time to wash his hands?

Senator Klaghorn . . . he's really gross. America can do better.

(Paid for by the Committee to elect Bob Blowhard)

Ed|2.10.06 @ 7:52PM|#

Negative campaigning is as relevant as positive campaigning -- in other words, it's irrelevant. Americans have become anticonceptual when it comes to politics. Perhaps they never were particularly smart about it -- a guy can dream, can't he? -- but emotions always rule the day. Our saving grace as Americans is our inherent good sense and benevolence. But with so few qualified individuals entering the political arena, choosing between "Mediocre" and "Really Bad" hinges on one's immediate, short-term, perceptual concerns. I'm not optimistic, but I take solace in the assumption that I'll probably be dead before the shit really hits the fan.

|2.10.06 @ 9:28PM|#

I've always been a fan of negative campaigning because I always want someone to explain to me why the other guy is not the right person or is generally full of shit. Anyone can laud the positives about themselves, but somebody has to show the other side of the coin.

There is a gray area though between negative and nasty/misleading. The NAACP ad with the dragging death insinuations comes to mind.