Negative Political Ads are Hurting the Candidates Who Run Them
By Chad Peace on 10/02/2012 in Cosultants, Negative Ads, Polls, Rasmussen with 31 CommentsRead Time: 2 - 3 minutes
The latest Rasmussen Reports Poll shows that, while 55% of voters are seeing more negative political ads, most are actually less likely to vote for the candidate who ran them. And 44% of voters aren’t even seeing them. Most political consultants would argue that they’ve done all the focus polling and that when it comes down to actually voting, this just isn’t true: people will vote for the guy who runs the negative ad for the fears they’ve created about the other.
What is not communicated between consultants and their clients (the candidates) is that these focus groups are conducted after ads and messaging have already been produced. This is the reality of the political world we live in today. Consultants universally agree that negative ads work. Therefore, they all run negative ads. The guy who wins ran negative ads because everyone ran them. So, conclusion: negative ads work … cycle repeats.
So when we get to the focus groups the consultants try to prove, rather than test, that their negative messages works. If the focus group responds negatively to the negativity, they conclude: “Well, they must be lying.” Or, “They say that here, but not when they go to the polls.”
Coming up with negative messages is easy and fun. The reality is that negativity has become so institutional in the small circles that control the political dialogue that many of them don’t even know what a campaign of persuasion even is, let alone how to write the messaging for them.
So what we end up with is: conductors (consultants) prove that negative ads work, tons of money is spent putting the ads on the airwaves that less and less people are seeing, and those who see them don’t like them. But they’re just lying.
From Rasmussen:
Most Americans are paying at least some attention to political advertising on TV this year and think it’s more negative than in previous years. But most also are less likely to vote for a candidate who runs a negative ad. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of American Adults who watch television at least occasionally say they pay attention at least somewhat closely to political advertising. This includes 26% who follow the ads Very Closely. Forty-four percent (44%) aren’t following the televised ads, with 13% who don’t watch them at all.





Leave Your Comment →
31 Comments
Lucas Eaves
10.02.2012
@lucaseaves
The next month is going to be a nightmare for viewers, which will confirm what they think about politics (that everybody is the same) and further discourage any interest that these people could have in politics. Maybe that is what they want in the end.
Alex Gauthier
10.02.2012
@alexg
I think this trend is indicative of television’s waning importance. The internet is becoming more and more the place where people consume their media, plus you don’t have to sit through political attack ads every ten minutes.
Dean Linney
10.03.2012
and… This just happend!
Nanci Oechsle
10.03.2012
For local candidates it definitely makes me less likely to vote for the person w/the negative ad campaign. On the national front, ads really don’t make a difference one way or another. My mind is usually made up way before any ads come out.
Trevor Bacquet
10.03.2012
for all the complaints, negative ads work, or they wouldn’t be used.
Richard Griffin
10.03.2012
I haven’t seen even one, but my opinion of these two has nowhere to drop to.
Carol Cantara Palmer
10.03.2012
No effect. I get the facts then decide. No “sheep” here. I know our media lies.
Judy Christensen- Horsley
10.03.2012
As an independent who normally is on the fence, Negative ads totally turn me off. I would rather hear solutions.
Amanda Merlino
10.03.2012
I don’t watch TV, so I get to avoid them.
Justin Tate
10.03.2012
fear is the engine. you find yourself believing how bad it would be if one guy was in office, so u vote for the hero. they need to spend more time telling me wat positive reactions id see from voting for them.
Deonia Dee Neveu
10.03.2012
I think they work for those who are not “educated” politically on the facts about the Candidates and so for those citizens the ads will have an impact.
Stormie Forte
10.03.2012
People say they don’t like negative ads, but they seem to work. A weird reversal of psychology.
S Chad Peace
10.03.2012
Stormie Forte if all the consultants and all the candidates run negative ads, the ads have to work for the one who wins. Its the cycle the consultants create.
Stormy Leigh
10.03.2012
If the negative ad is a lie such as the 47% ads, not only am I less likely to vote for the candidate but I am more likely to donate/support the other candidate
Ernest Roldan
10.03.2012
Enough with the Obama’s failed policies, it’s time to have a new leader in the Oval Office.
Vote for the Republican party to save this country.
Linda Moore
10.03.2012
Last week in a motel I saw campaign adds. Hubby and I were laughing. NO TELEVISION = NO ADDS. Soooo psychological manipulation is not a factor here. No radio either…. Rural, very rural.
Judy Ferro
10.03.2012
Idaho traditionally votes against those who run negative ads. We don’t get a lot of them.
Jeff Delancey
10.03.2012
Where is the line drawn between a negative add and letting people know truth even when its not pretty. Our society is becoming so candy assed that we forgo truth to make people feel good. The media is already stacked up for any democrat running. Any other party has to scratch and fight to get their message across.
Paul Swarts
10.03.2012
If the object of negative ads is to keep people from voting because they cann’t figure out who’s who. Vote for the one who gets the most negative ads because they ,must be doing something instead of nothing
Peggy Spencer Fitch Preece
10.03.2012
I hate negative. Ads ! And I tend to turn away from negative and back biting people.
Martin Niwinski
10.03.2012
A skeptics case for Gary Johnson:
http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/sep/26/skeptics-case-gary-johnson/
Wink Winkler
10.03.2012
Less
Charles Fregeau
10.03.2012
I’ve turned my TV off until Nov 6th. I almost BARFED when I saw that lying pot-smoker from Arknasas praising that lying-pot smoker from Chicago.
Arielle Pierson
10.03.2012
@batgirl
Campaigning in general is bad for candidates it’s all about who can demean the other opponent while making the most money. I wish campaigns were run so that candidates worked with news organizations and set up interviews through them, traveling from studio to studio, without huge fundraisers directed at the upper class Americans or spending all their funds on negative adds. There are so many ways in which less money cold be spent and the candidates could address the people whose voices really count….
Victor Marinelli
10.03.2012
I turned off cable 3 years go. What political ads? hehe
Zachery Abramson
10.03.2012
@zabramso
I think this is just indicative of our culture’s mentality. We’re taught by our educational systems to think critically, a lot of times on a surface level which leads to one-dimensional oppositions
Zachery Abramson
10.03.2012
@zabramso
Plus with the public becoming more weary of our government, it not really surprising to see that we don’t trust their ads either.
Ricky Gandhi
10.03.2012
there’s a term in political science (I don’t remember the name of it) where it explains the phenomena of individuals stating something and then doing the exact opposite. It works perfectly for campaign ads: they say it doesn’t work because then that would make them look bad and seem manipulated; but subconsciously, it has an effect, otherwise negative ads wouldn’t run
Samuel Longfellow
10.03.2012
I wholeheartedly detest the use of negative campaign ads.
Trevor Britton
10.03.2012
im adverse to political advertisements…period.
Benjamin Foster
10.05.2012
@befoster87
It is my opinion that negative attack ads are used soley to create excitement and increase turnout among unlikely voters. It seems that group would be more susceptible to fact manipulation and appeals to emotion. Those who have been following the election have a better understanding of each candidates history, therefore more difficult to persuade.