(A Note About Sources: For my project, I used an incredible site that had a massive amount of archived campaign advertisements. Regrettably I was unable to upload many of these videos onto the blog. Although I managed to find some substitutions, I encourage all of you to follow along on the site in order to watch the videos as I discuss them in the paper.)

Nicolaas Dalton

Ms. Matthews

English 101- Political Rhetorics

23 November 2008

The Influence of Negative Campaigning

When the American people think about presidential campaigns, they generally maintain the same point of view; all politicians will say whatever they need to in order to acquire more votes. But beyond this shallow, pessimistic view of our election process, there are many subtleties to the ways that candidates discredit and invalidate their opponents. In recent elections, the American people saw the evolution of the art of negative campaigning. Each election season, voters are subjected to thousands of negative political advertisements. These small infomercials usually focus on a small piece of a candidate’s history or, for an incumbent, a blunder in their first term. Campaigns buy time on nearly every television station in an attempt to get their message to the American voters. As a result, television viewers are bombarded with political advertisements for months during election years. Although most studies found that viewers don’t like negative campaigning (Birmingham Political Examiner), none can deny that negative campaigning advertisements have played a massive role in deciding the last couple of elections. Throughout the last five elections, these ads took many different forms, but the lesson is the same: the campaign that uses negative advertising most effectively has the upper hand.

The most effective way for campaigns to get their advertisements to the public in recent years is through television. A study by MSN Money found that in 1992, 94.7% of American households had a color television. A more recent study conducted by Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 69% of Americans get their news from television. Put those facts together, and it is almost impossible to ignore the influence that television has on voters. Television advertisements are how most voters learn about the candidates. In a brief clip, the candidates can inform the viewer of their side of the story. These short, one-sided arguments can seriously effect the way that voters view the candidates. One thirty-second commercial during prime-time television can reach over fifty million voters. The effect of the influence, however, depends upon the content of the commercials themselves. The most effective negative campaign advertisements focus on a small part of the truth, and use this truth to tarnish a candidate. It is not uncommon to see advertisements that use a small piece of evidence to back up an emotional appeal. One candidate can often present their opponent as a poor choice to protect American ideals and values. The implication is that if such a candidate is elected, the American people will be at greater risk both physically and economically. Yet, no matter what issues take importance on election day, the results are the same. As Karen Harper of the Birmingham Political Examiner puts it, “negative campaigning works. . .The more mud one candidate slings at the other, the more votes he or she seems to get.” In short, the threats to America’s security and prosperity change overtime, but negative campaign advertisements seem to be a constant in American elections.

Looking back to the 1992 election, America’s main concern was adapting to a global economy. One of the reasons that this was at the forefront of the campaigns was that America experienced a recession from July 1990 to March 1991 (Encyclopedia of Business, 2nd Edition). George H. Bush, the incumbent Republican candidate, ran against Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. When one examines the advertisements as a whole, one can easily see that Bill Clinton utilized negative campaigning much more effectively: placing the blame of the current economic situation on George Bush. In one advertisement, entitled “Better, Off” George H. Bush is shown saying “in four years, you will be better off than you are today” (Clinton Gore ’92 Committee).

(Read My Lips)
Then the advertisement points out that in Bush’s four years as president, family incomes fell, health care costs rose, and taxes increased by the second highest margin in history. This is a very powerful message, and this is exactly the kind of infomercial that influences voters’ opinions. According to the commercial, under George H. Bush, the government failed to meet its obligation to Americans. When the facts speak so clearly for themselves, it is no wonder that Bill Clinton won the election with three-hundred and seventy electoral votes.

(1992 Electoral College Map)
In retrospect, George H. Bush did not have many viable negative attacks that he could rely on. His tax increase went in direct contrast to what he campaigned for. While he tried to accuse Bill Clinton for being a flip-flopper in one advertisement entitled “Two Dots” (Bush-Quale ’92 General Committee), none of his efforts could erase the fact that his presidency had, to a certain degree, failed the American people. Another advertisement, entitled “Arkansas,” attacks Bill Clinton’s leadership experience, and criticizes the policies that he implemented. It notably mentions that under his governorship, Arkansas spending increased and so did its deficit. However, these accusations were not as meaningful because they did not occur on the National scale. In other words, Bill Clinton, from one perspective, might not have had the best Governorship, but his failures as a Governor cannot be compared to George Bush’s failures as President because the scales are completely different. Bill Clinton’s success in his first term towards balancing the national budget also gave him an advantage going into the next election.
(National Debt over time Democratic Presidents in Blue, Republicans in Red)

In the 1996 campaign, Bill Clinton, the incumbent democrat, ran against Republican Senator Bob Dole. The result of the election was very similar to that of the 1992 election: Bill Clinton winning a landslide victory of 379-159 electoral votes. While Bob Dole’s spent 9 million dollars on advertisements, the attack portion of his campaign relied only on the fact that Bill Clinton had initiated the largest tax increase in history (“Getting And Spending, Election Campaign Spending” Commonweal). In one advertisement, titled “At Stake” he responds to Clinton’s tax raises by saying, “You shouldn’t have to apologize for wanting to keep what you earn. Its your money” (Dole/Kemp ’96) By accusing Clinton of stealing the American people’s money for “wasteful spending” he points out one of the major flaws of Clinton’s time in the White House. However, the Clinton campaign did not have to work hard in order to repudiate these charges, his record as President largely stood for itself. In his first four years, he reduced the budget deficit from over $350 billion dollars to $100 billion, reformed welfare, and decreased the national crime rate. While the Republican’s tried to discredit Clinton based on his tax increase, Clinton already had many notable accomplishments.

One might argue that Clinton won the election solely based on the success of his first term. And while there is some merit to this argument, it ignores all the effort that Clinton put into his campaign. In 1996, the Democrats spent 22 Million dollars on advertising (“Getting And Spending, Election Campaign Spending” Commonweal). To be sure, there are not many Americans that would choose to discontinue with the economic prosperity, environmental protection, education improvements and reduced crime enjoyed in Clinton’s first term in office, but these are not the only reasons for Clinton’s overwhelming victory. Even though Bill Clinton managed an incredibly successful first term in office, he still used many negative advertisements to attack Bob Dole. John Buckley, Bob Dole’s Communications Director, noted that “there are 36,000 30-second clips against Dole” (“Bread & Circuses, Bob Dole’s Presidential Campaign”, Kate O’Beirne) One of Clinton’s attack advertisements, titled “Present” poses him as a protector of American values that Bob Dole and Nute Gingrich want to destroy (The Democratic National Committee). According to the advertisement, Bob Dole and Nute Gingrich want to take away the projects that help Americans. This advertisement is very similar to another advertisement entitled “Police” (Democratic National Committee). Not only does this advertisement show Bill Clinton’s success in lowering crime by passing The Brady Act, it also shows that Bob Dole and Gingrich voted against these bills. The implicit emotional appeal is that America will be a more dangerous place with Bob Dole in the White House. The Clinton Campaign’s ability to successfully target the weak points in Bob Dole’s history and use them in strong negative advertising contributed greatly to his victory.



(1996 Electoral College Map. Clinton beats Bob Dole with 379-159 electoral votes.)

The 2000 election, was completely different in results and campaigning. First of all, the result was much closer than the previous elections: Governor George W. Bush beat Vice President Al Gore only 271 votes to 266. Second, neither campaign implemented the same amount of negative campaigning as in other elections. There is a strong correlation between the disparity in the number of votes and the amount of attack ads. Much more of the advertisements were of the biographical sort that simply praised their own candidate’s policies. George Bush focused on his plans for American education, while Al Gore lobbied for his interests in the environmental protection. Surprisingly, only one-third of Bush’s ads even mentioned Al Gore, and only 1/5 of Al Gore’s advertisements attacked Bush. (To see examples of the Campaign Advertisements look on the site, particularly at the advertisements titled "Oil Man" (DNC) and "Expect" (RNC).) Because the candidates did not attack each other as much as in other campaigns, the voters did not view the negatives of the candidates. Invariably, voters did not exhibit the same clear-cut division as in other elections because the candidates never thoroughly distinguished themselves. They both promised to improve something in America; Bush promised to improve education while Gore promised to look after the Environment. However, neither candidate thoroughly revealed the weaknesses of the other candidate. It seems that when attack advertisements are not as common, there is not as big a distinction between the candidates and voters are less likely to flock to one side of the aisle.



(2000 Electoral College Map Bush Beats Al Gore 271 votes to 266)


The 2004 presidential race ended almost as the 2000 election had; George Bush won by a narrow margin of 274 to 252 electoral votes. However, George Bush’s campaign had learned several lessons since his previous campaign. Namely, the more negative campaigning, the better their chances were for winning the election. From looking at both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions’ advertisements, one can see that the Republicans outperformed the democrats when it came to discrediting Democratic Senator John Kerry. Not only did the RNC spend 48.5 million dollars to the DNC’s 24 Million dollars on advertising (Presidential Finance Summary, 2005), but the the RNC was also more effective in exploiting the opposition’s weaknesses. In advertisements such as “Outsource” (Kerry-Edwards 2004), John Kerry alludes to the fact that 2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost during Bush’s four years in office, and many of those jobs were being shipped overseas to companies who evaded American taxes. The problem with this advertisement is clear; it does not effectively pin George W. Bush as the cause of the job loss.




(Electoral College Map 2004, George W. Bush defeats John Kerry 274 to 252 votes.)








Republicans responded to the Democrats advertisements with a foray of their own commercials, each one criticizing a policy of John Kerry’s or using his changes of opinion to show exhibit his inconsistencies. In infomercials such as “Optimist” (Bush-Cheney ’04), the Republicans use the fact that Kerry talked about the failures of the U.S economy to show that his pessimism was unlikely to bring America out of its economic instability. Furthermore, commercials such as “Blowing” (Bush-Cheney ’04) seemed to be a staple of the Bush Campaign. These advertisements revolve on Kerry’s changes of opinion in order to exemplify that a leader cannot be inconsistent on these issues. Almost everybody in America heard the cries of “flip-flopper” when John Kerry’s name arose.


("Kerry's Number 1 Flip-Flop", A multitude of clips with this quotation were made to discredit John Kerry)

If anything, the 2004 election is a testimony to the power of negative campaigning. How else could a President with only a 45% approval rating (Washington Post) abscond with nearly 60 million votes? The only way for Bush to win was for him to prove again and again that John Kerry was a lesser candidate. Consequently, the Republicans spent millions of dollars with the direct intent of smearing John Kerry.



In 2008, Democrat Senator Barack Obama won a huge victory over Republican Senator John McCain: 364 to 174 electoral votes. Barack Obama, largely due to the massive contributions that his campaign had received, was able to create many more advertisements than John McCain. Aside from trumping the Republican advertisements in terms of quantity, the Democratic commercials used more specific examples and critiqued more fully each aspect of John McCain’s Campaign. Consequently, the Democrats were able to create a cornucopia effective advertisements. In one such advertisement, entitled “Taketh” (Obama For America), Obama states the flaws of the John McCain approach to Health Care, and notes that “for the first time in history, [McCain] will tax your employer health benefits.” The advertisement ends with the question: “Can you afford the McCain Health Tax?”



The reason that the advertisement is effective is that it presents John McCain’s own voice and point of view, and then continues to poke holes in his logic. The McCain campaign did not put forward any advertisements that were as meaningful as the ones against him. While there were many emotional appeals that claimed that Obama was “too risky for America” in advertisements such as “Dangerous” (Republican National Committee). The commercial calls Obama’s desire to cut funding to Iraq dishonorable and dangerous. By using a small bit of the truth: the fact that Obama did not want to fund the war in Iraq, the infomercial implies that such behavior endangers the lives of the troops and is “too risky for America.”



It seems that most Americans were not persuaded by the fear of Obama, but were instead convinced by the many advertisements that proved McCain to be out of touch and similar to George W. Bush. Part of the reasons that Obama's advertisements were more effective is that his campaign used quotes that did not seem out of context. The "dangerous" ad does use a quotation to be sure, but the music and the general tone of the advertisement do not coerce well enough to instill a fear of Obama. It almost seems like a bad horror movie than a political cartoon. Invariably, in this election, fear of Obama did not compare to the confidence his economic plan instilled. To be sure, Obama’s success was largely due to his ability to raise massive amounts of money for his campaign. His prosperity only multiplied when he used these funds to create effective commercials to reach a variety of audiences.

The ability of the candidates to present their arguments through a viable medium is essential to their success. In each of the last five elections, voters chose the candidate based on their ability to attack and discredit the opposition. Each candidate can present their life story in a way that appeals to the traditional American values of family, public service, and self-sacrifice for the American people. Invariably, the biographies do not decide the President. When it comes to elections, the messages that resound in the voting booths are the ones that can prove the opposition most unfit for the presidency.As Karen Harper of the Birmingham Political Examiner states, “The more mud one candidate slings at the other, the more votes he or she seems to get.” That is not to say that Americans do not care about the issues, but we are constantly exposed to negative images of the candidates. Under constant bombardment, it is impossible to ignore the message completely. The most effective way to get these messages to the public is by using the most amount of air time to project a variety of short commercials that both tarnish the opposing candidate and give support for the challenger.

In each of the last five elections, the party that won spent more money on advertising. Needless to say, there is something fundamentally flawed about this system. When the Candidate with more spending power consistently wins, it spells trouble for our political system as a whole. Moreover, the smear tactics that these negative campaign advertisements use can seriously defame the candidates themselves. As John Buckley, Bob Dole’s communications director in the 1996 campaign, remarked "People forgive [candidates'] their shortcomings because they have lowered their expectations about what a President should be. We have to raise those expectations. It's a two-pronged approach, both recalling [the opponents’] weaknesses and highlighting [the candidates’] personal and public virtues.” Should we allow our elections to be tainted by the stain of negative campaigning and personal defamation? Or is this decrease in the expectations of a president reasonable? Either way, most people would agree that the election should not be influenced, at least in the current degree, by negative campaigning, but rather by the candidate’s ability to provide the leadership, wisdom, and strength that America needs.