Inside Politics - August 2000

Does Negative Campaigning Produce Positive Results?

by Michael Sullivan

A recent political mailer sent out in a Clark County Commission race has again inflamed the issue of negative campaigning. The brochure, mailed by the Service Trades Council of Southern Nevada against Commissioner Mary Kincaid, included graphic images of injured and sick children. It was done to illustrate Kincaid’s vote against building a county-funded children’s hospital. Kincaid called a press conference and the media did several stories on the fallout over the brochure.

The Commissioner claimed the piece would backfire, gaining her support and sympathy. But political strategists have been utilizing these kinds of tactics successfully for years. Indeed, pundits who have closely followed Southern Nevada politics called the piece brutally effective. A survey in Campaigns and Elections magazine showed that while voters are wary of attack messages, an overwhelming majority would listen as long as the attack is deemed to be a fair representation of the candidate’s record.

Why do these kinds of campaign mailers work so well, but cause such public outrage? The answer lies in the fundamentals of human nature. Most voters are initially complacent. Their lives are going along with little controversy and the inherent fear of change makes the status quo very appealing. The only way to jolt them or move them out of complacency is to give them an issue which evokes strong feelings.

A negative mailer isn’t necessarily designed to get a challenger votes. In fact, sometimes they can lose votes for a candidate. They are really supposed to make people stop, think and be aware of the issues in a race. The public outcry heard when a negative mailer is sent usually comes from a vocal minority. Yes, some voters will hate the initiator of the negative message. Far more, however, will start to change their thought process.

Those who were convinced the incumbent was doing a good job now might think, "Hey, perhaps things aren’t as good as I thought they were." Their minds will be open to additional information and they will start to follow the race a bit more closely. Voters who are just angered by the mud slinging will likely stay home and won’t vote at all. That will help whichever candidate has the best "ground game", or grassroots operation for turning out voters. If a challenger can keep enough of the incumbents’ voters home through aggressive, targeted mailings, then they only have to get their own voters to the polls to assure victory.

Attack ads and mailings can be very tricky. A candidate must get the facts across in a clear, concise and strong manner without going "over the top." Was the message from the unions in the Kincaid race too negative? Did the message turn off voters? Most of the people interviewed by television reporters did admit the pictures were very powerful. But it was hard to tell whether they were turned off enough not to get the message. Again, most surveys have shown that as long as the attack was perceived as fair and not hitting a candidate on personal or "out-of-bounds" issues like divorces and personal tragedies, the public will not respond negatively. These surveys will obviously be tested over and over during campaign 2000.

The Kincaid-Stephanie Smith race will be the hottest one on the ballot for this September primary. The union’s desire to see Kincaid out of office has made this race closer than it might have been. While Kincaid enjoys substantial leads in most polls, no surveys have been conducted since the union’s strong hospital mailing. The incumbent has a large war chest, and can spend most of it in the primary due to the overwhelming numbers of Democrats in Commission District B. It will be hard to overcome, but Smith’s union friends could make it competitive.

The only other Commission race to have a primary is Lance Malone vs. Chip Maxfield. Early polling shows the incumbent Malone with a comfortable lead, but Maxfield is mounting an aggressive campaign. He has a lot of name identification to buy, however, and not a lot of campaign funds to do it with.

Michael Sullivan
Michael Sullivan is president of Knight Consulting, a Southern Nevada government affairs firm.