Submitted to a Candid World

Since the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth debacle of 2004, Democratic politicians have operated under the theory that every negative campaign attack – even the most absurd – merits a full reply. Indeed, this theory finds support in other elections: Dukakis’ failure to respond to Bush’s negative attacks in 1992 made him seem weak and ineffective. But the need to respond only goes so far. Candidate Obama should be careful at the amount of time and money he’s willing to put into responding to negative attacks. While attacks must be met and defused, Obama’s first priority should be to shore up his issue-by-issue credentials.

The Costs & Benefits of Negative Campaigning

Positive campaigning (“I’m Candidate X, and I stand for this issue”) and negative campaigning (“Candidate Y is a liar”) both carry unique strategic advantages and disadvantages. Positive campaigning allows a candidate to define their candidacy by issues that resonate with the electorate, but risks alienating voters who oppose endorsed issues, and loses effectiveness as the candidate’s image becomes entrenched in the public mind: in short, a candidate can max themselves out on “positive” points. Negative campaigning, on the other hand, undercuts a candidate’s built-up “positive” points, and remains effective so long as the public can tolerate perceived “smear” attacks, but risks backlash. ((David Dafmore, “Candidate Strategy and the Decision to Go Negative,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3, Sep., 2002)) In that sense, it represents a “roll of the dice”: a chance to discredit a candidate’s positive appeal, or tarnish one’s own credibility.

Negative campaigning also has other effects, including potentially decreasing voter turnout, ((Martin P. Wattenberg and Craig Leonard Brians, “Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 93, No. 4, Dec., 1999 (finding that negative ads do not decrease turnout, despite the opposite conclusions of many other researchers, and arguing that, if they did decrease turnout, their use would be less widespread, since changing a voter’s mind is better than de-mobilizing a voter))) and creating differential effects on voter populations (supplying some accurate information to sophisticated voters, who can “see through” the spin, and supplanting correct information with spin in the minds of unsophisticated voters). ((Daniel Stevens, “Separate and Unequal Effects: Information, Political Sophistication and Negative Advertising in American Elections,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 3, Sep., 2005)) Although this represents only a slice of the wide array of research done on negative campaigning, I assume the accuracy of these conclusions for the sake of this post.

Evaluating Obama’s Needs

Assuming that these are the rules of the game, Barack Obama has a lot to lose by campaigning negatively. Although he continues to hold the electoral edge over McCain, Obama suffers from low voter trust in a number of key areas, suggesting that Obama’s candidacy is not yet fully developed: people like his ideas and his potential, but don’t trust him to carry through on either. Framed in the context of the above, Obama has not maxed himself out on “positive” points yet. ((Although the limited bump he received after his trip abroad suggests he may have maxed himself out on his foreign credentials, his domestic credentials at least need the help.)) Closing the “trust” and “experience” gap ought to be the Obama campaign’s prime ad vector, a goal best accomplished by continual highlighting of Obama’s accomplishments at home and – to a lesser extent – abroad. “Rising above” negative campaigning also makes Obama look like a cool-headed leader, an image he must continue to project.

If Obama has a lot to gain by campaigning positively, and highlighting his ability to follow through on his promises, he has a lot to lose by campaigning negatively. While academics may debate whether or not negative campaigning suppresses turnout, this is not a chance Obama should take: he leads in registered voters, but trails in likely voters, and needs to reap the benefit of increases in registered Democrats. Depressing voter turnout is the equivalent of Democratic suicide. Similarly, Obama cannot run the risk of a negative campaign backfiring, as this could potentially feed into key groups’ already negative opinions of him (elitist, etc.). Simply put, staying on-message and staying positive is a win-win, for Obama, and for America.

Evaluating Obama’s Responses to McCain’s Negative Ads

Bearing this in mind, the Obama campaign’s response to McCain’s negative streak has been largely responsible. His recent ad, featured on his website, entitled “Low Road” -

- responds where necessary, attacking McCain’s message rather than the candidate himself, and quickly moves on to a positive note, with an admittedly abrupt and odd change in music. Strategically, this is a good choice. Obama’s off-the-cuff responses to McCain’s attacks, though, are a little less well-planned:

No doubt the past eight years have been plagued, indeed, by public officials delighting in their ignorance. Even Hillary’s done it. But aggressive language like this is likely to appeal to the choir – I enjoyed it – while putting off moderates, which Obama must avoid. Anti-elitism in America is something for our candidates to fight by their deeds rather than their words, at least until they’re in the White House.

Conclusion: What to Expect from McCain

Against this backdrop, it’s no surprise to see McCain turning negative. Left to his own devices, as Obama closes his ticket’s perceived experience deficit (possibly by pickng a good vice president…), his numbers are only going to go up, while McCain, exposed to the public eye for so long & so entrenched on the issues, stands to gain nothing more by keeping it above the belt. Negatives are the only way for him, now, to shift the numbers, and accordingly, we can probably expect more of this from him as the election season goes on. There’s every reason to expect, though, that dependence on negatives will backfire on McCain, who’s made his name on being above exactly this type of campaigning. By fighting dirty, McCain is rolling the dice, and counting on the ability of his glistening veneer of bipartisanship and moderation to shield him from voter backlash. But sometime soon, the dice will come up the wrong way, and when they do, Obama will be in the best position to capitalize on the mistake if he keeps his head high and presidential.