Going Negative
Posted Oct 07, 2008 at 9:07 AM by Maurice Berger
Does going negative work? While public opinion surveys continually register voter disapproval of negative campaigning, all-too-often hardball rhetoric and attacks ads do work. The McCain campaign has just intensified a new negative strategy: exploiting Obama's ties to controversial associates, from the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. to William Ayers, a founder of the radical Weathermen group responsible for a string of domestic bombings more than 30 years ago. The Obama campaign has counter-punched with talk of McCain's perceived "instability" or his involvement in the Keating Five scandal back in the 1980s. McCain's strategy, in a number of ways, mirrors that of the Gerald R. Ford campaign in 1976. In the summer of 1976, the incumbent Republican president was more than thirty points behind his Democratic challenger, a newcomer to national politics, Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter. Over a four month period, Ford and his surrogates relentlessly attacked Carter as untested, inexperienced, untrustworthy, and relatively unknown, even to Democratic primary and caucus voters, who the Ford campaign asserted picked the charismatic newcomer in a rush to judgment. Ford and his surrogates implied that Carter's tone was messianic; his supporters cultist. By Election Day, Ford lost by a whisker (and may well have won if not for one amazing debate blooper). While Obama is ahead right now, both public opinion surveys and reporting in a number of swing states continue to suggest an undertow of discontent, anxiety, or uncertaintly about the Democrat (due to factors as diverse as racism, the candidate's relative youth, and his perceived "liberalism."). For the time being, the dire economic news has helped the Democrat get out his message and overcome these doubts to some degree. But is the Illinois Senator vulnerable to the onslaught of negative messages about him now being disseminated by the McCain campaign, the Republican party, and 527 groups? Conversely, will the Obama campaign's negative counter punch--painting McCain as unstable, unpredictable, and unable to handle a crisis--create doubt of its own in the minds of anxious voters? Will either of these strategies backfire?
