As a political junkie, and with the way this campaign is going, I’m curious about people’s thoughts on something. The public always says they hate negative ads and attacks, yet research constantly shows that they work. In doing a bit of research, I found an interesting article – and would love to hear people’s thoughts on it.
Four years ago in 2004, Richard Davis (Rick Davis), wrote a very interesting article about how smear campaigns work in American politics – and how to make them effective (“The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign”). What’s interesting also is that he is now head of McCain’s 2008 campaign
boston.com/news/globe/editor … gn/?page=2
Rick Davis, writing for the Boston Globe, March 21, 2004.
Here’s a short quote:
"The premise of any smear campaign rests on a central truth of politics: Most of us will vote for a candidate we like and respect, even if we don’t agree with him on every issue. But if you can cripple a voter’s basic trust in a candidate, you can probably turn his vote. The idea is to find some piece of personal information that is tawdry enough to raise doubts, repelling a candidate’s natural supporters. It’s not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. The most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth and applied in a way that exploits a candidate’s political weakness.
At the time he wrote the article, Davis was complaining about such tactics, using how Bush operatives smeared McCain in 2000 (he was McCain’s campaign manager in 2000 too) to illustrate how smears work, and their influence on people. Now it’s a few years later, and (at least the way I see it), Davis himself has completely jumped onto the “if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em” wagon.
But I don’t mean for this to be specifically McCain/Obama related though (otherwise I would’ve posted this in one of the current McCain/Obama topics). Smears and negative ads are there in just about every campaign today, from Mayor to City Council to ballot propositions… and I’m wondering what people think (those outside the US as well). With the cloak of anonymity here, do you admit that negative smears really do sway you somewhat? (regardless of candidate or party)? Or do you consider yourself completely immune to them? Do you wind up getting what you consider valuable information from them, or immediately reject anything in a negative ad? Can you completely dismiss them out of your head, or do they stay in the back of your mind even if you don’t want them to?
Have a look at the article. It’s not that long, and is quite fascinating (basically, how to launch a smear campaign against your opponent – written four years ago by the person now the head of McCain’s presidential campaign). Is he right? Does this stuff work with you or people you know?