Election 2006

With today’s midterm elections holding much at stake, this campaign season has been smudged by the use of negative television advertisements. The money spent on negative ads was ten times greater than the money spent on positive ads this year, according to the Associated Press. These campaigns were hoping the nasty tactics of the past few months would turn out nice results at the polls today.

Heated senatorial elections in states such as Pennsylvania where incumbent, Rick Santorum ran against Democrat, Bob Casey, Jr., spurred vicious television campaigns intended to sway voters. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Casey are two of the three wealthiest candidates running for U.S. Senate, with over 22 million dollars and 16 million dollars, respectively in campaign finances.

In one particular ad, Mr. Santorum smeared his opponent by showing a poker table filled with Mr. Casey’s campaign contributors and financial allies. It becomes apparent as the 30-second slot concludes that this game takes place within a jail. Mr. Casey, the State Treasurer and son of late Gov. Robert P. Casey, responded in another commercial that Mr. Santorum’s ads were a “disgrace” and said that Mr. Santorum voted three times to raise his own pay.

Negative campaign commercials have proven track records, and usually solidify support for the opponent, while creating uncertainty amongst supporters of the marred candidate. Once a candidate airs a negative ad, the opponent often answers with a negative response. These negative responses are “usually a necessity,” said Scott Simpson, a senior analyst at Lake Snell Perry Mermin & Associates, Inc. His firm specializes in strategic political polling and research for candidates.

Pollster’s results show that negative ads can be effective. However many voters feel that this election’s mudslinging has been detrimental to their understanding of where candidates actually stand on issues.

“That’s all they have — negative ads,” said Nancy Frankenfield of Bethlehem, PA, in a phone interview. “They never say what they’re going to do, just what’s bad about their opponent. I’m so tempted to not even vote,” she continued. Ms. Frankenfield is discouraged, like many other voters, not wanting to vote for either candidate due to the negativity that has dominated the months and weeks prior to Election Day.

“A lot of times candidates just lay out the negatives of the other person,” said Mr. Simpson. Negative advertisements are “targeted toward people who either don’t like politics, don’t understand politics, or want to avoid making a choice,” Mr. Simpson said. Candidates definitely plan in advance to produce responses to potential negative ads. Political campaigns started preparing commercials for the elections back in the spring. Initial voter surveys focus on finding basic dynamics of the state and then campaigns use media consultants to come up with scripts for ads, Mr. Simpson said. He stated that many surveys this season closely monitored voters’ concern for President Bush’s position in Iraq.

“Many negative spots distort platform, but some argue that the positions actually taken form an indictment of the opponent,” said Dr. David Birdsell, Professor and Dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College. Dr. Birdsell distinguished comparative ads such as those of the Santorum/Casey race from character attacks, such as a commercial attacking the character of Republican Representative Don Sherwood from the tenth Congressional district of Pennsylvania. This ad highlighted a suit filed by Cynthia Ore, accusing Mr. Sherwood of assault and battery during their five-year extramarital affair.

“They think they can convince people by scaring them about the opponent,” said Ivette Tarrida, a resident of Philadelphia. “These ads do work and influence many people. It’s all about moral issues, and it’s easy to attack them in campaign ads,” Ms. Tarrida said.

Yet many voters at the polls today felt that the burgeoning use of negative ads during this election cycle often had a reverse impact. “If you shed dirt on your opponent, it just makes you look bad, in my opinion,” said Kristian Sorge, of New York City. Although “Republicans have always been able to sling mud better than Democrats,” according to Mr. Sorge. The Democrats learned from the 2004 Presidential elections, which perhaps resulted in the endless cycle of negative ads between parties, both earlier and more frequently, during the campaign.

The polarization of Republicans and Democrats seen in ads for this election left many voters uninformed, not understanding political platforms, and thus forced to vote for “the lesser of two evils,” as Mr. Sorge said.