Affirming the Benefits of Negative Campaigning
By: Amy R. Ramos | March 18, 2008 | 11:02 AM (PDT) | 
Comments
Share:
Now that Hillary Clinton's "3 a.m. insistently ringing red phone" commercial has achieved political advertisement hall-of-fame status, political scientists John Geer and Ken Goldstein argue in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece that negative campaign ads — far from being the scourge that most commentators make them out to be — energize the electorate and facilitate an informed debate about the candidates' relative merits.
"Negative ads," write Geer and Goldstein in the Times, "are more likely to focus on issues, are more specific and contain many more facts than positive ads. They enhance political interest and familiarity with the candidates' qualifications more than positive ads, which, in turn, raises citizens' likelihood of voting. In short, negative ads are more likely than positive ads to foster the kind of engagement we all want from the American electorate."
Some of the professors' main points, as well as their research, were highlighted in the Miller-McCune.com piece "Lies, Damned Lies and Campaign Advertising."
Video: Watch the Clinton commercial
We encourage you to share any articles or material you find on Miller-McCune.com with friends and colleagues. Please fill in the fields below with the name and e-mail address, separating multiple addresses with semi-colons (;). Then fill in the same information for you. Miller-McCune will not keep any information about you or your friend, and the e-mail your friends receive will appear to have come from your e-mail address. The asterisk (*) denotes a required field.
Post A Comment
We want your feedback but you must be logged in first.
Trenchant and snarky are cool but all comments are subject to approval/removal.
Want more space than a little box? Write for us!
Comments