| By Mark Warner (Director of Client Success) Negative campaigning is a common tactic in political campaigns that involves attacking opponents’ weaknesses. While this strategy can provide certain tactical advantages, it can also harm both candidates by potentially damaging their reputations and alienating voters. You and your teams must know when to rise above, respond to, or completely ignore negative attacks in order to maintain your integrity and connect effectively with voters. The Red Meat of Politics: Negative campaigning often appeals to the party’s base and their emotions; I call this the ‘red meat of politics.’ This ‘red meat’ can take the form of ads highlighting a rival’s flaws, personal attacks in debates, or even social media posts that ridicule an opponent’s policies. It allows the candidate to draw clear contrasts with their opponents. Although research shows that negative ads can increase voter turnout, they can also lead to voter apathy and disillusionment and can effectively drive potential supporters away. Rising Above the Attacks: In today’s political landscape, authenticity and integrity significantly impact voter sentiment. In 2023, we worked with then-Carmel, Indiana, mayoral candidate Sue Finkam, who maintained her focus and resilience despite facing several attacks. Her straightforward message set her apart from her opponent: She emphasized her vision of keeping Carmel special and addressed the key issues voters were concerned about. It wasn’t easy, but she rose above the challenges, and the city elected her as the next Mayor. This case underscores the importance of authenticity and integrity in political campaigns, as they can set you apart and resonate with voters. When to Respond? While rising above is often noble, ignoring negative attacks can be detrimental. A calculated and well-framed response may be necessary if an opponent’s claims are false or damaging enough to mislead voters. In these situations, responding with a level head and focusing on presenting the facts is essential. This ensures you stay on message and stay rooted in facts rather than devolving further negativity. Ignoring such attacks can risk allowing them to gain traction and potentially harm your campaign. Avoid personal attacks.—craft responses that reflect maturity and uphold the campaign’s values to project confidence and credibility. Use the response to pivot back to your key message and policies. Highlight how the attack misrepresents them while reinforcing your campaign’s vision. When to Completely Ignore Sometimes, the best strategy is to ignore negative campaigning altogether. If the attacks lack merit or are speculative, engaging may only lend them credibility. It can also divert attention from the issues that truly matter to voters. In these cases, candidates should consider: – Focus on the crucial topics impacting voters instead of getting bogged down in endless back-and-forth controversies. – If the attack doesn’t gain traction among constituents, it might not warrant a response. Ignoring it can allow candidates to retain their integrity and focus on their goals. – When an opponent unleashes negativity, counter it with solid, forward-looking communication that excites and engages voters. Conclusion Navigating negative campaigning requires strategic thinking and an understanding of voter sentiment. Candidates must decide whether to rise above, respond to, or ignore attacks based on context. Effectively managing these tactics can enhance their reputation and promote constructive political dialogue, leading to a more informed and engaged electorate. |
NEWSLETTER: Utilizing Personal Connection in Voter Turnout
Personal Connection in Voter Turnout By Derek Dufresne (Partner) Cutting through the noise to mobilize conservative voters is more challenging than ever. While campaigns have long relied on traditional outreach—television, digital, phone calls, mailers, and...
