Summary: Advertising Age (10/31)
notes that the 2006 election is shaping up as the dirtiest ever. It
follows the old political adage that politicians have to give voters a reason to
vote for them and a reason vote against their opponents. The bottom line is that
negative ads work...
No Shortage of Mudslinging in Midterm
Run-Up
In Some Congressional Races, 80% of Ads Have Been Negative
By Ira Teinowitz
Published: October 31, 2006
WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- The 2006 election is shaping up into the biggest
mudslinger yet, with negative ads accounting for 80% of the total in some races,
up from 60% two years ago. And campaign analysts warn that could foreshadow even
more filth for 2008.
The overwhelming majority of this season's ads have been negative.
'The dirtiest ever'
"The 2008 campaign will be the dirtiest ever," predicts Larry Sabato, director
of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "There will be no
sitting president or vice president running, and the last time that happened was
1928. The mud will be so thick that people won't be able to see their TV
screens."
A report issued late last week by the Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project
of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, said the increase in negative advertising
is a result of a spike in advertising by party committees. Since Labor Day, 91%
of the ads from the National Republican Congressional Committee for House
candidates have been negative, while 81% of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee ads have been negative.
The report said that while both sides have been negative, there have been marked
differences in tone, with Republicans "hitting below the belt."
'Petty and personal'
"What stood out [in the Republican ads] was a pronounced tendency to be petty
and personal and sometimes careless with the facts," the report said. "The
Republican ads variously accuse Democratic candidates of such things as charging
an 'adult fantasy' phone call to taxpayers, of being a 'hypocrite,' of being a
'greedy trial lawyer,' of being a 'millionaire know-it-all' or failing to pay
business taxes on time."
The group said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ads are also
negative but generally attack Republicans on policy rather than personal issues.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the
University of Pennsylvania, said that in tracking both House and Senate races,
the center has seen a clearly higher level of negative advertising. Negative ads
in some races account for 80% of the total, up from 60% two years ago. And in
some cases, the tone of the advertising in races dramatically changed when party
committees stopped advertising and only candidate ads remained.
Battling the status quo
"The Democrats have to argue against the status quo, so they are attacking,
while the Republicans are hoping to turn the negatives into nonvoters," she
said.
Mr. Sabato said party consultants believe that 80% to 90% of political ads this
year are either purely negative or contrasting negative.
"It plays to the popular conception," he said. "The public is cynical and
doesn't believe positive ads, the lovely family, the dog and cat and a picnic.
An election is based on a mood and you have to match the atmospherics. The
public mood this year is that they are totally soured on politicians. One party
will win but no one respects them."
A GOP campaign consultant suggested it may just appear that negative ads are on
the rise, but it's mainly that the nastiness quotient within them has risen.
"The negatives aren't working as well and so campaigns are turning up the volume
in their ads," he said.
