Negative Attack Advertising

Over the years Campaigning in the U.S. has changed drastically because of technological advances, the internet, social media, and the real-time information sharing across the globe. One study suggest that over the years, examining 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, political advertising has become more negative. The Wesleyan Media Project’s charts states and 2004 election 45 percent of the ads were negative, where in 2012 about 65 percent of the ads were negative.1 There are many speculations on why these negative ads are increasing with every election, but one fact is that campaigns can use negativity to bring attention to a certain topic and sometimes benefit from the free media coverage if the controversy is popular enough.

In this day and age, political advertisements are stretched to the limits of toleration. Many of them focus more on the shortcomings of their opponents rather than the ideas and plans they have for the country. Often, the ads are nothing more than superficial smears aiming to tarnish the image of the target nominee. If the ads where kept cleaner and were more focused on important

In the 2012 Presidential election, the majority of outside spending was a result of the Citizens United decision1. The unique increase of money translated into an increase in television ads, radio ads, and direct mailings. Unfortunately, the large increase in political rhetoric caused a move to political extremes rivaling those at the end of the Civil War2. It explains that micro-targeting of advertising allowed corporations and Super PACS to create echo chambers, where only points of view in agreement with the audience were expressed. Polarization was an issue before the Citizens United ruling, but the unique increase in rhetoric caused the “worst polarization in 120 years.

That is one reason why the public has come to reject the idea of the Super PACs. It has the turned the political campaign into a shallow, reality television, mud-slinging type of contest from which the candidates can never return. The ads being run in the newspapers, television, and radio stations cost these candidates and Super PACs money that could have been used for better political means such as contributions to charitable organizations by the candidates or their support groups on their behalf. That sort of act would have had a greater political impact upon the voting public than an ad campaign explaining the ills of Newt Gingrich. Even more sickening, is the fact that most of the candidates will feign knowledge of participation in any negative campaign movements because of the independent nature of the Super PACs. The candidate can deny any involvement in the act all the while coordinating with his Super PAC under the radar of mass media. These negative campaigns leave the candidate free and clear of any involvement as all the Super PAC has to do is run the ad with a clear disclaimer absolving the candidate the ad supports of any wrong doing because the ad was not sanctioned by the candidate or political party.

The government and politicians also uses rhetoric the opposite direction. The produce videos that try to get us to buy into their propaganda. Look at the many different political ads right now. Why does it matter to me if a politician has castrated hogs? Also I see ads for Obamacare. I have health insurance. Why are they still trying to sell me on this health plan?

From the perspective of a candidate, the main goal of a political campaign is to win votes. Politicians use campaign propaganda to help achieve that goal. There are six primary strategies used in campaign propaganda: stacking the deck; testimonials/endorsements; plain folks; negative ads; glittering generalities; and guilt by association/coat-tailing. A campaign is measured by its effectiveness, whether it is informative, and if it is ethical.

As Election Day approaches, especially during presidential campaigns, critics of politics decry low voter turnout. Advertising can be

The purpose or intended goal of incorporating negative television advertisements can be speculative, but a strong argument can be made for their use to improve or at least deflect attention from an incumbent president’s low approval ratings. As LoGiurato indicates, “Typically, Gallup has found, incumbent presidents with 50 percent approval ratings or above are easily re-elected for a second term” (LoGiurato, 2012). But according to a Gallup Poll of 1,001 registered voters, Bill Clinton held an approval rating of 56 percent while incumbent President Bush held an approval rating of 37 percent (New York Times, 1992). Low and declining approval ratings due to President Bush’s broken promise of ‘no new taxes’ made at the 1988 Republican National Convention appear to have limited his options in terms of campaign strategy. This challenge provided a

As during any election cycle, nearly all types of media are currently flooded with campaign advertisements that viciously attack various candidates’ politics, character, or sometimes both. People are willing to go to extraordinary lengths in order to gain power over others. This is likely due to the fact that everyday citizens are so susceptible to influence from those above them. As demonstrated in World War II, individuals are extremely susceptible to impact from authority figures.

If non-committed voters are persuaded to stay home, the influence of the dedicated and party loyal voter is increased. This helps to keep small majorities in positions of power. The authors state that there has not been an increase in the negativity of elections, but there is problem with how they define this. If we look at the severity of the comments uttered during campaign season, then no. There has always been crude vulgarity in politics since, “Andrew Jackson had to endure attacks by his political opponents that his deceased mother was a prostitute” (114). But if frequency is the dependent variable, I believe there is notable rise, due to increase in time we spend in front of a screen. We see these negative messages more often, and memory is based on intensity and

Politicians are considered by most people to be slick talkers and this is said rightly so because of their uses of rhetorical devices that they “used primarily to give a statement a positive or negative slant regarding a subject, they are sometimes called slanters” (Moore and Parker, 2007, p. 118). They are, known for their use of rhetorical analogy, by “likening one thing to another thing in order to convey a negative— or positive—feeling about it…” (Moore and Parker, 2007, p. 120). Then, the one of them that can promise the most change or the best benefits in their political debate may win but once when in office, they do the opposite of what they promised. They also use the ad hominem fallacy as a tactic to win voters over on their side by attacking there opponent’s character as well as their reputation and their motives. For these reasons politicians are, stereotyped because of the long

An assumption of representation is that an elected representative is an agent who expresses district preferences in legislative activities. Voters have preferences, but do not know which candidates in the election best aligns with these preferences; therefore, campaign communications and advertisements are important avenues that help highlight congruence of preferences between a candidate’s and voter’s positions (Krupnikov, 2011). This new electoral environment after Citizens United now has more independent campaign expenditures going toward election communications on behalf of candidates than in previous elections (Federal Election Commission, 2015). This new campaign environment includes three primary entities of outside spending: Super PACs, traditional Political Action Committees, and political parties.

It is very common among the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent 2.6 billion dollars on advertising that year from which 2 billion were used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008.) Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political

     When candidates develop a plan of attack for campaign advertising, they tend to aim for at least four types of commercials. One form or type of commercial is those which play on the fears of countrymen. Fear

Lawn signs, television advertisements, billboards, and political rallies are some of the key components of a successful political campaign. A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the democratic public that is voting for its elected officials. These seemingly trifling parts of a campaign cost money. Money equals power, is the political mantra in today’s society. Campaigning can cost millions of dollars, and it is logical to believe that only those with the means have the ability to participate in the race for leadership. In a democratic society such as ours, every person has the right to vote and stand up for what they believe is right. Every person, from Donald Trump to the regular middle class citizen,